.-^f^y  or  PRiSc?^ 


BS    413    .B55    1901 

Biblical  and  Semitic  studies 


gale  'Bicentennial  J^ublicationjs 

BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC   STUDIES 


gale  'Bicentennial  publications 

JVith  the  approval  of  the  President  and  Fellows 
of  Tale  University^  a  series  of  volumes  has  been 
prepared  by  a  number  of  the  Professors  and  In- 
structors^ to  he  issued  in  connection  with  the 
Bicentennial  Anniversary^  as  a  partial  indica- 
tion of  the  character  of  the  studies  in  which  the 
University  teachers  are  engaged. 

This   series    of  volumes    is    respectfully   dedicated  to 

K)^t  6raDuate0  of  tlie  tanitersfit^ 


BIBLICAL 


AND 


SEMITIC    STUDIES 


CRITICAL  AND   HISTORICAL  ESSAYS 
BY  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE 

SEMITIC   AND    BIBLICAL    FACULTY 

OF   YALE   UNIVERSITY 


NEW  YORK:   CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

LONDON:   EDWARD   ARNOLD 

1 901 


Copyright,  1901, 
By  Yale    University 

Published,  October,  iqoi 


UNIVERSITY  PRESS    •    JOHN  WILSON 
AND    SON    •    CAMBRIDGE,  U.  S.  A. 


PEEFACE 

The  greater  number  of  the  essays  published  in  this  volume 
have  been  presented  as  papers  before  the  Semitic  and  Bibli- 
cal Club  of  Yale  University,  and  are  included,  after  proper 
revision  and  expansion,  in  this  volume  as  fairly  representing 
the  varied  type  of  work  done  in  that  long  established  and 
highly  useful  organization.  This  origin  explains  the  diverse 
character  of  the  themes  discussed.  They  have  been  arranged 
for  printing  in  an  order  which  is  fairly  historical,  beginning 
with  a  discussion  of  the  earliest  Semitic  movements  which 
resulted  in  the  organization  of  Israel,  and  closing  with  a  his- 
tory of  one  of  the  latest  achievements  of  Semitic  energy. 


CONTENTS 


THE  TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL 

Page 
I.    Their  Mention  in  the  Old  Testament  : 

1.  In  the  Priestly  Writings  (P) 3 

2.  In  the  Deuteronomic  Writings  (D) 5 

3.  In  the  Historico-prophetical  Writings  (JE) 5 

XL    The  Genealogical  Origin  of  the  Tribes  : 

1.  The  Origin  and  Purpose  of  their  Genealogy 7 

2.  The  Separate  Members  of  Israel's  Genealogy      ....     11 

III.  The  Separate  Tribes  : 

1.  The  Sons  of  Leah,  —  Reuben,  Simeon,  Levi,  Judah,  Issa- 

char,  and  Zebulon 18 

2.  The  Sons  of  Rachel,  —  Joseph  and  Benjamin       ....     22 

3.  The  Sons  of  the  two  Maids,  — Dan,  Naphtali,  Gad,  and 

Asher 27 

IV.  The  Settlement  of  the  Tribes  in  Canaan 31 


THE  GROWTH   OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW 

I.    Israel's  Original  Heritage  of  Customs  and  Laws  .     .  41 

n.    Influences  which  led  to  the  Revision  and  Expansion 
of  the  Law  : 

1.  The  Settlement  of  the  Hebrews  in  Canaan 45 

2.  The  Babylonian  Exile 46 

3.  Contact    with    Other    Peoples    and    Fusion   with    the 

Canaanites 46 

4.  Changed  Political  and  Social  Conditions 48 

5.  New  Religious  Institutions 49 

6.  The  Development  of  Higher  Ethical  Standards  ....  49 

7.  The  Teaching  of  the  Prophets  and  Wise  Men     ....  50 

8.  The  Divine  Influence  in  the  Growth  of  the  Law  ....  51 

HI.    Conditions  before  the  Establishment  of  the  EIingdom  .  54 


X  CONTENTS 

Page 

IV.     ISRAELITISH   LaW   IN   THE   MAKING  : 

1.  The  Decisions  of  Judges 56 

2.  Moses'  Relation  to  the  Law 59 

3.  The  Share  of  the  Priests  in  developing  the  Law  ...  60 

4.  The  Different  Stages  in  the  Growth  of  the  Law  ...  63 

V.    The  Growth  of  the  Written  Law  : 

1.  Original  Motives  for  committing  Laws  to  Writing     .     .  65 

2.  The  Origin  and  Date  of  the  Decalogues 67 

3.  Private  Codes  embodying  New  Principles  and  adapted 

to  New  Needs  :  the  Deuteronomic  Code      ....  72 

4.  The  Public  Ratification  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code     .     .  76 

5.  Theoretical  Private  Codes :  Ezekiel,  40  to  48  ....  77 

6.  Formative  Ceremonial  Codes 78 

7.  The  Public  Ratification  of  the  Priestly  Code  ....  81 

VI.    The  Growth  of  the  Oral  Law       84 

VII.    Conclusions 87 

THE   YECER  HARA  :  A   STUDY  IN   THE  JEWISH 
DOCTRINE   OF  SIN 

I.    Introductory 93 

II.    Criticism  of  Weber's  Treatment  of  the  Yecer     .     .  98 

III.  The  Rabbinical  Conception: 

1.  The  Seat  of  the  Good  and  Evil  Impulses 110 

2.  The  Nature  of  the  Evil  Impulse Ill 

3.  The  Origin  of  the  Evil  Feper 117 

4.  The  Conquest  of  the  Yefer  by  Man 123 

5.  The  Removal  of  the  Yefer  by  God 130 

6.  Summary 132 

IV.  The  Presence  of  the  Conception  in  Earlier  Sources  : 

1.  The  Book  of  Sirach 136 

2.  The  Apocalypse  of  Ezra 146 

3.  The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch 152 

4.  The  Secrets  of  Enoch 154 

THE   SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE  TRANSFIGURATION 

I.    New  Testament   Passages  Referring  to  the  Trans- 
figuration : 

1.  The  Account  in  Mark 159 

2.  The  Account  in  Matthew 164 

3.  The  Account  in  Luke 166 

4.  Mark's  Account  the  most  Primitive 169 

5.  The  Account  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 171 

6.  The  Account  in  Second  Peter 171 


CONTENTS  xi 

n.    Various  Explanations  of  the  Transfiguration  :  Page 

1.  The  Vision  Theory 176 

2.  The  Dream  Theory 178 

3.  The  Naturalistic  Theory 179 

4.  The  Theory  of  an  Objective  Reality 180 

5.  The  Mythical  Theory 181 

6.  Oscar  Holtzmann's  Theory 186 

III.    The  Historical  Significance  of  the  Transfiguration  : 

1.  The  Meaning  and  Importance  of  the  appearing  of  Moses 

and  Elijah 189 

2.  The  Events  of  this  Period  Reviewed 193 

3.  The  Relation  to  Peter's  Confession 200 

4.  The  Importance  of  the  Witness  of  the  Old  Testament  to 

the  Early  Christians 203 

5.  The  Jewish  Conception   of   a   Suffering   Messiah   Post- 

Christian      204 

6.  The  Details  of  the  Gospel  Narrative 206 

7.  Possible  Objections  Considered 208 

8.  Conclusion 209 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH:  ITS   ARGUMENT  AND 
DOCTRINAL   RELATIONSHIP 

I.    Relation  of  the  Speech  to  its  Narrative  Setting     ,     213 

II.    Style  and  Vocabulary 230 

III.    Doctrinal  Conceptions  of  the  Speech  and  their  Lit- 
erary Affinities 237 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  OF  EGYPT  AND 
NORTH   AFRICA  (643-705  a.d.) 

The  History  and  its  Author 279 

I.    The  Story  of  the  Conquest  : 

1.  The  Conquest  of  El-Fayyum 283 

2.  The  Conquest  of  Barca 284 

3.  The  Conquest  of  ItrSbulos 285 

4.  'Amr's  Request  for  Permission  to  Invade  Africa    .     .     .  287 

5.  The  Removal  of  'Amr  from  the  Command  in  Egypt    .     .  288 

6.  The  Violation  of  the  Treaty  by  the  Alexandrians  .     .     .  290 

7.  The  Destruction  of  Khirbet  Werdan 293 

8.  Further  Traditions  relating  to  this  Campaign    ....  294 

9.  'Amr's  Visits  to  the  Caliph  'Omar 295 

10.  The  Death  of 'Amr  ibn  el'Asi 297 

11.  'Amr's  Last  Commands 299 


xii  CONTENTS 

n.    The  Campaigns  of  'Abd  Allah  Ibn  Sa'd:  Page 

1.  The  Conquest  of  "Africa" 301 

2.  How  the  Tidings  were  brought  to  Medina 304 

3.  The  Conquest  of  Nubia 307 

4.  The  Victory  of  Dhu  \s-Sawari 310 

5.  The  Garrison  of  Alexandria 313 

III.    Subsequent   Commanders   and  Expeditions   in  North 
Africa  : 

1.  Mo'awiya  ibn  Hodaij 315 

2.  'Oqba  ibn  Nafi' 317 

3.  Abu  '1-Muhajir 320 

4.  'Oqba's  last  Campaign 322 

5.  Hassan  ibn  en-No'man 325 

6.  The  Death  of  Zuhair  ibn  Qais    ....0....327 

7.  Musa  ibn  Nosair 329 


THE   TRIBES   QY  ISRAEL 


EDWARD  LEWIS  CURTIS,  PH.D.,  D.D. 
Holmes  Professor  of  the  Hebrew  Language  and  Literature 


THE  TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL 


THEIR  MENTION  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

1.   In  the  Priestly  Writings  (P.) 

The  priestly  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  are  those  por- 
tions of  the  Hexateueh  written  (unless  certain  laws  are  ex- 
cepted) after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  586  B.  c.  and  the  still 
later  books  of  First  and  Second  Chronicles.  In  these  is  the 
fullest  mention  of  the  tribes  of  Israel.  According-  to  them  Israel 
already  in  Egypt  consisted  of  twelve  or  thirteen  organized 
tribes  representing  the  descendants  of  the  twelve  sons  of  Is- 
rael. This  appears  from  the  use  of  the  word  "  hosts  "  in  con- 
nection with  their  departure  from  the  land  of  Egypt  (Ex.  6  : 
26 ;  7 :  4 ;  12 :  17,  41,  51).  On  the  basis  of  such  an  organiza- 
tion their  entire  life  in  the  wilderness  is  also  pictured.  Each 
tribe  is  divided  into  families  which  are  again  subdivided  into 
households  (cf.  Num.  1 :  2, 18,  20  ;  Josh.  7  :  14  et  al) '^ ;  and  on 
this  basis,  at  the  beginning  of  their  second  year  in  the  wilder- 
ness, on  the  eve  of  their  first  attempt  to  enter  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan, a  census  is  taken  of  all  men  of  a  military  age  (Num.  1), 
and  again  at  the  close  of  the  forty  years  of  wandering  in  the 
desert  (Num.  26).  According  to  their  tribes  also  were  the 
people  marshalled  for  their  journey  through  the  wilderness 
(Num.  2),  each  tribe  having  its  fixed  station  about  the  taber- 
nacle. Representatives  from  the  twelve  tribes  go  forth  to  spy 
out  the  land  (Num.  13  :  4-15),  and  by  a  selection  of  an  equal 

1  The  terms  used  are  ntflD  (also  older  £33K')  tribe,  nnSK/o  family,  3N  n'3 
household  (plural  nnxrc^).     Nowack  Arch.  Bd.  I.  p.  300  f. 


4  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

number  of  men  from  each,  an  army  for  the  conquest  of  Midian 
is  formed  (Num.  31 :  4  f.). 

Under  such  a  complete  united  tribal  organization  Canaan 
is  conquered  and  the  tribes  settling  west  of  the  Jordan  receive 
their  territory  by  lot  (Jos.  14:  1-5),  and  the  boundaries  of 
each  portion  are  given  in  detail  (Jos.  15:  1-12,  20-61;  16: 
4-9;  17:  1-10;  18:  1;  18:  11  to  19  :  46  ;  19:  48  to  21:  42).i 
This  representation  of  such  a  perfect  tribal  organization  of 
Israel  is  ideal,  resting  not  upon  contemporary  documents,  but 
arising  when  Israel's  past  existence  was  conceived  under  the 
form  of  a  highly  developed  ecclesiasticism. 

Historically  there  was  no  such  regular  movement  or  precise 
constitution  of  the  people.  In  general  the  only  facts  worthy 
of  heed,  given  in  these  priestly  narratives,  are  those  respect- 
ing the  elements  of  each  tribe  and  their  geographical  location. 
Tribes  were  made  up  of  families,  and  these  again  of  house- 
holds, but  even  these  terms,  however,  were  not  early  used 
with  precision.^  Sharp  verbal  distinctions  belong  to  the  exilic 
literature.  The  boundaries  assigned  to  the  tribes  (in  Jos. 
14-19)  may  be  generally  accepted,  although  it  is  true  that 
having  a  map  of  Canaan  before  him  a  late  writer  could  easily 
apportion  the  land.  Yet  geographical  reminiscence  is  natu- 
rally enduring  and  there  is  no  serious  reason  for  questioning 
that  here  preserved.  The  idea,  however,  frequently  advanced,^ 
that  since  the  boundaries  given  in  the  book  of  Joshua  can  be 
retraced  in  modern  surveys,  therefore  the  record  is  ancient,  is 
a  non  sequitur.  Such  a  fact  only  proves  that  the  writer  had 
a  correct  knowledge  of  the  geography  of  Palestine,  and,  indeed 
the  suspicion  that  the  boundaries  did  come  from  the  priestly 
writer,  although  preserving  a  true  tradition,  seems  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  those  located  in  Southern  Palestine,  where 
he  probably  resided,  are  less  confused  than  those  in  other 
sections.* 

1  These  priestly  sections  are  given  accoriling  to  Carpenter  and  Battersbj,  The 
Hexatctich,  London  and  New  York,  1900. 

2  Buhl,  Social  Vfrhditnisse  in  Israel,  s.  37. 

8  See,  for  example,  Stewart's  The  Land  of  Palestine,  1900,  p.  36. 
*  Steuernagel,  Joshua,  p.  200. 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  5 

Of  similarly  little  historical  value  are  the  notices  of  the 
tribes  given  in  First  and  Second  Chronicles.  Here  again  the 
writer  pictures  the  movements  of  the  people  carried  forward 
by  the  distinct  twelve  or  thirteen  tribes  mentioned  by  name. 
Each  tribe  represented  by  a  definite  number  of  warriors  ap- 
pears at  Hebron  to  make  David  king  over  all  Israel  (1  Chr. 
1 2 :  23-40),  and  a  list  is  given  of  officers  over  each  tribe  under 
David  (1  Chr.  27 :  16-22).  Such  a  regularity  of  tribal  organ- 
ization does  not  appear  in  the  earlier  accounts  of  David's 
reign  and  is  plainly  an  ideal  sketch  of  the  Chronicler.  In  any 
discussion,  then,  of  the  early  tribal  life  or  history  of  Israel  the 
material  found  in  the  priestly  writings  can  be  almost  entirely 
ignored.  Its  significance  is  theological  rather  than  historical, 
since  it  furnished  a  vehicle  for  the  eschatological  conceptions 
of  Judaism  and  early  Christianity  (cf.  Ezek.  48;  Rev.  7: 
5-8). 

2.    In  the  Deuteronomio  Writings  (  Z).) 

In  the  writings  of  the  so-called  Deuteronomic  school,  which 
flourished  during  the  century  following  650  B.  c,  the  concep- 
tion of  the  early  organization  and  life  of  Israel  is  of  the  same 
general  nature  as  that  in  the  priestly  writings,  although  the 
idea  is  not  worked  out  so  in  detail  or  with  such  specific  refer- 
ence to  the  individual  tribes.  They  appear  all  together  men- 
tioned by  name  only  in  connection  with  the  blessing  and  curso 
pronounced  from  Mount  Gerizim  and  Mount  Ebal  (Dt.  27), 
but  the  solidarity  of  Israel  moving  as  one  man  is  plainly 
brought  out  in  the  Deuteronomic  accounts  of  the  conquest  of 
Canaan  (cf.  Jos.  10 :  28-43 ;  11 :  10  to  12 :  24). 

3.  In  the  Historico-Prophetical  Writings  {JE.) 

In  the  prophetic  narratives  of  the  Hexateuch  (known  as  J 
and  E  or  as  combined  JE.)  and  the  kindred  portions  of  the 
subsequent  historical  books,  are  found  the  earliest  accounts  of 
the  tribes  of  Israel.  These  narratives,  however,  were  written 
not  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  and  give 


6  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

reminiscences  of  the  past  and  theories  based  upon  later  con- 
ditions, in  genealogies  and  stories  which  in  their  interpreta- 
tion open  a  wide  field  of  conjecture  and  uncertainty.  From 
these  legendary  materials  must  the  history  of  Israel's  tribes 
be  constructed.  Three  documents  also  of  special  value  have 
been  preserved  treating  specifically  of  the  tribes  of  Israel :  (1) 
The  song  of  Deborah  (Judges  5).  This  is  one  of  the  oldest 
extant  pieces  of  Hebrew  literature  if  not  quite  the  oldest,  and 
is  generally  received  as  a  document  contemporary  or  nearly  so 
with  the  events  which  it  describes.  (2)  The  Blessing  of  Jacob 
(Gen.  49).  This  sketch  of  the  twelve  tribes  is  clearly  from 
the  primacy  given  to  Judah  (vv.  8-12)  not  earlier  than  the 
time  of  David,  Its  date  otherwise  is  difficult  to  determine, 
except  that  it  antedates  the  special  priestly  office  of  Levi  or 
the  Deuteronomic  conception  of  the  tribe.  (3)  The  Blessing 
of  Moses  (Dt.  33).  This  document  is  considerabl}^  later  than 
the  previous  one,  as  the  silence  concerning  Simeon  and  the 
change  in  the  reference  to  Levi  plainly  show.  Judah  also 
occupies  a  different  position.  Driver  places  it  shortly  after 
the  rupture  under  Jeroboam  I.  The  majority  of  critics,  how- 
ever, assign  it  to  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL 


II 

THE  GENEALOGICAL  ORIGIN  OF  THE  TRIBES 
1.    The  Origin  and  Purpose  of  their  Qenealogy 

The  tribes  appear  as  the  descendants  of  the  sons  of  the 
patriarch  Jacob-Israel,  who  in  turn  is  the  son  of  Isaac,  the  son 
of  Abraham,  the  son  of  Terah.  And  Terah  is  not  only  the 
father  of  Abraham,  but  also  of  Nahor  and  Haran  (Gen.  11 : 
27)1;  and  Haran  is  the  father  of  Lot,  the  father  of  Moab  and 
Ammon  (Gen.  19 :  30-38)  ;  and  Nahor  is  the  father  of  a  group 
of  Aramean  tribes  (Gen.  22 :  20-24).  Abraham  also  is  not  only 
the  father  of  Isaac,  but  of  Ishmael,  the  father  of  a  group  of 
Arab  tribes  (Gen.  25 :  12  ff.  P.)  ;  and  Isaac  is  not  only  the 
father  of  Jacob,  but  also  of  Esau,  who  represents  Edom,  The 
origins  are  given  in  this  genealogical  way  because  primitive 
peoples  were  wont  thus  to  explain  their  beginnings.  The 
Greeks  thus  traced  their  descent  from  Hellen,  who  had  three 
sons :  Dorus  and  ^olus,  from  whom  came  the  Dorians  and 
^olians,  and  Xuthus,  from  whose  sons.  Ion  and  Achseus, 
came  the  lonians  and  Achaeans,  This  method  prevails  espe- 
cially among  Israel's  kinsmen,  the  people  of  Arabia.  Accord- 
ing to  their  writers  the  inhabitants  of  Arabia  are  patriarchal 
tribes  formed  by  the  subdivision  of  the  original  stock  on  the 
system  of  kinship  through  male  descendants.  In  process  of 
time  this  stock  broke  into  two  or  more  tribes  each  embracing 
the  descendants  of  one  of  the  great  ancestors'  sons  and  taking 
its  name  from  him.  These  tribes  were  again  divided  and  sub- 
divided upon  the  same  principle.     Between  a  nation,  a  tribe, 

1  This  verse  is  from  P.,  but  vv.  28  f.  from  J.  show  that  this  source  contained 
the  same  genealogical  scheme. 


8  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

a  sept  or  sub-tribe,  there  is  no  difference  on  this  theory  except 
in  size  and  distance  from  a  common  ancestor.^ 

This  theory  prevailed  in  Israel  in  the  later  genealogies. 
Jacob-Israel,  who  stood  for  the  people  as  a  whole,  is  the  father 
of  twelve  sons  representing  the  twelve  tribes.  Each  son  again 
is  the  father  of  another  group  of  sons,  representing  the  fami- 
lies or  clans  of  the  tribe.  Each  of  these  sons  in  turn  is  the 
father  of  another  group  representing  the  households  of  the 
clan,  and  from  these  households  come  sons  representing  indi- 
viduals. This  appears  in  the  story  of  Achan.^  He  is  the  son 
of  Carmi  the  son  of  Zabdi  (household),  the  son  of  Zerah 
(family  or  clan),  the  son  of  Judah  (tribe),  the  son  of  Israel 
(nation).  These  facts  seem  quite  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
patriarchs  of  Genesis  cannot  in  general  be  regarded  as  real 
persons.  Tribal  names,  it  is  true,  are  sometimes  derived  from 
historic  heroes,^  but  such  a  scheme  of  persons  as  appears  in 
Israel's  genealogical  tree  cannot  be  readily  conceived  as  hav- 
ing existed.  "No  nation  known  to  us  in  history  can  be 
traced  back  to  a  single  progenitor.  The  spaces  of  time  that 
intervene  between  the  progenitor  or  progenitors  and  the 
nation  are  always  too  vast  and  the  complications  and  tribal 
mixtures  too  varied  and  numerous  to  allow  of  the  develop- 
ment being  traced  back  to  those  ancestors.  The  life  and 
thought  of  a  later  time  are  also  woven  into  the  story  of  Gene- 
sis. The  characters  of  Ishmael  and  Esau  are  derived  from  the 
people  whom  they  represent.  Ishmael,  the  wild  son  of  the 
desert,  is  a  type  of  the  Bedouin  of  the  desert.  The  rough 
hunter  Esau,  whom  Jacob  cozens  and  deprives  of  his  birth- 
right, is  the  model  of  the  Edomites  who  reached  an  indepen- 
dent existence  before  Israel,  but  were  subdued  by  the  latter."  * 

This  simple  form  of  explanation  that  lines  of  descent  repre- 
sent peoples,  tribes,  and  families  does  not  entirely  cover  the 

1  Cf.  W.  R.  Smith,  Kinship  in  Arabia,  pp.  3  f . 

2  Cf.  Joshua,  7  :  16  ff.  D. 

8  R.  Smith,  Kinship,  p.  15.  Sprenger,  Mohammed,  iii.  p.  cxxxvi.  Jour. 
Bibl.  Lit.  vol.  xi.  1892,  p.  120. 

*  Kittel,  Hist,  of  Israel,  vol.  i.  p.  169. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  9 

case  when  we  examine  the  genealogy  of  Israel's  origin,  Terah 
cannot  be  recognized  as  a  great  people  or  race  subdivided  into 
tribes  represented  by  his  sons  Abraham,  Nahor,  and  Haran,  and 
these  in  turn  subdivided.  Only  in  the  latest  members  of  this 
genealogical  tree  are  historical  tribes  clearly  recognizable. 
Israel  and  the  twelve  or  thirteen  tribes  are  historical,  and  thus 
also  while  much  obscurity  exists  in  regard  to  the  twelve  sons 
of  Nahor  (Gen.  22:  20-24),  it  is  beyond  question  that  the 
writer  derived  their  names  from  tribes,  peoples,  or  districts  of 
his  own  day.  Uz  (to  be  distinguished  from  the  one  connected 
with  Edom,  Gen.  36:  28;  Jer.  25:  20;  Lam.  4:  21)  is  men- 
tioned in  Job  1:1;  Buz  in  Jeremiah  25 :  23  ;  and  Maacah  in 
Deuteronomy  3:  14;  Joshua  12:  5;  13:  11;  Second  Samuel 
10 :  6,  8.  Ilazo  occurs  probably  on  an  Assyrian  inscription 
(DeL  Par.  306  f.).  Bethuel,  house  of  God,  perhaps  equivalent 
to  Methuel  (  Vn^DD),  man  of  God  (BDB  Lex.,  Enc.  Bib.  568), 
suggests  from  its  meaning  a  mythological  or  religious  origin  j 
still,  names  ending  in  el  are  tribal.  This  fact  of  historical 
tribal  representation  is  seen  also  in  the  twelve  sons  of  Ishmael 
(Gen.  25 :  12-16).  They  too,  although  all  of  them  have  not 
been  identified,  represent  historical  peoples.  Nebaioth  is 
mentioned  in  Isaiah  60 :  7,  and  on  the  Assyrian  inscriptions 
(though  probably  not  to  be  connected  with  the  later  Naba- 
theans) ;  Kedar  in  Isaiah  21 :  16  f . ;  42 :  11 ;  60 :  7 ;  Jeremiah 
49:  28;  Tema  in  Jeremiah  25:  23;  Job  6:  19;  Jetur  appears 
in  the  Itureans  of  the  Roman  period.  Moab  and  Ammon,  the 
children  of  Lot,  are  well  known  peoples.  Ishmael  undoubtedly 
as  well  as  Israel  represented  a  people.  The  name  occurs  as 
gentilic  in  the  story  of  Joseph  (Gen.  37 :  25,  27,  28),  showing 
that  such  a  tribe  or  people  had  at  some  time  a  real  existence, 
but  since  they  are  only  mentioned  thus  in  the  legends  of 
Israel  or  figuratively  (Ps.  83 :  6  (7)),  they  probably  early  fell 
into  the  background  or  disappeared. 

The  earlier  members  of  a  line  of  descent  may  not  only  be 
tribes,  but  also  genealogical  links  derived  from  other  sources, 
especially  from  deities.  These  deities  were  the  survivals  of 
the  ancient  polytheism  of  Israel  and  its  neighbors.    The  poly- 


10  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

theism  of  Israel  is  abundantly  witnessed  by  the  Scriptures  in 
the  references  to  the  gods  served  "  beyond  the  River  and  in 
Egypt "  (Jos.  24 :  2, 14,  23),  in  the  teraphim  stolen  by  Rachel 
(Gen.  31 :  19,  30  ff.),  and  the  strange  gods  in  Jacob's  household 
(Gen.  35 :  2  ff.),  to  say  nothing  of  the  evidence  in  the  stories  of 
the  constant  relapses  into  Baal  worship  recorded  in  the  book 
of  Judges,  and  which  continued  even  until  the  exile.  Tribal 
gods  long  remembered  and  cherished  in  song  and  story,  and 
from  whom  the  people  had  once  reckoned  their  descent  easily 
would  be  transmuted  into  ancestors  and  framed  in  genealogies. 
This  would  be  especially  favored  from  the  ancient  Semitic 
conception  of  a  people  being  the  son  of  its  god.  Thus  Israel 
is  called  the  son  of  Yah  we  (Ex.  4:  22;  Hosea  11:  1).  The 
Moabites  are  called  the  sons  and  daughters  of  Chemosh  (Num. 
21 :  29).  Hence  each  tribe  might  have  a  double  ancestry, 
that  of  the  tribal  patriarch  or  eponym,  or  that  of  the  tribal 
god,  whose  son  the  former,  however,  would  most  naturally  or 
necessarily  be,  or  both  might  be  represented  under  the  same 
name.  This  last  appears  in  the  case  of  Gad,  which  is  not  only 
the  name  of  a  tribe  and  hence  of  an  eponym  or  patriarch,  but 
also  of  a  deity  (Isa.  65 :  11 ;  cf.  also  the  place  names  Baal- 
Gad,  Jos.  11:  17;  12:  7;  13:  5,  and  Migdol-Gad,  Jos. 
15:  37). 

Israel's  genealogy  also  arose  as  a  whole  to  express  kinship 
as  well  as  to  give  an  origin.  The  people  of  Israel  recognized, 
through  community  of  speech  and  customs,  that  they  were 
closely  related  to  the  Aramean  tribes  north  and  east  of  Pales- 
tine, the  Arabian  tribes  east  and  south,  and  their  near  neigh- 
bors, the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  and  the  Edomites,  The 
reminiscence  of  an  early  association  with  these  people  may 
also  have  remained,  and  through  these  two  influences  came 
the  genealogy.  It  was  mainly  an  explanation  of  facts  of  the 
period  of  its  composition,  somewhere  probably  between  900  and 
700  B.C. 

An  exact  solution  of  all  the  varieties  of  genealogical  rela- 
tionships given  is  not  at  hand.  Mothers  and  daughters  seem 
to  represent  the  same  class  of  facts  as  fathers  and  sons,  there 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  11 

being  no  generic  difference  between  them.  Both  tribal  life 
and  probably  tribal  mythology  appear  under  the  form  of  a 
family  experience.  Elder  sons  may  represent  earlier  and 
more  powerful  tribes  and  families ;  marriages  their  coalitions, 
the  weaker  being  perhaps  the  wife,  and  an  inferior  a  concu- 
bine ;  untimely  deaths,  their  disappearance ;  different  relation- 
ships of  the  same  person,  different  political  or  geographical 
changes.  But  many  genealogical  stories  and  relationships 
originated  evidently  in  folk  tales,  and  hence  they  present  a 
mingling  of  fact  and  fancy,  of  mythology  and  history,  and  the 
relationships  of  father,  mother,  wife,  son  or  daughter  cannot 
be  interpreted  upon  any  uniform  theory  in  respect  to  the  pre- 
cise meaning  of  each.  Especially  open  to  criticism  is  the 
notion  that  wives  represent  weaker  tribes  and  marriages  coa- 
litions. Wives  or  concubines  are  necessary  when  children 
appear.  They  spring  from  a  necessity  in  the  genealogy  or  the 
folk -tale,  and  hence  one  must  be  on  guard  against  thinking 
marriages  necessarily  arose  from  actual,  historical  unions. 
Wives  may  be  wholly  due  to  the  imagination  and  their 
names  derived  from  various  sources. 


2.    The  Separate  Members  of  Israel's  Genealogy 

Terah  has  been  identified  with  an  ancient  deity  (Tarhu, 
Turgu)  whose  worship  was  widespread  in  Northern  Mesopo- 
tamia and  adjoining  districts^  and  whose  name  is  preserved 
apparently  in  the  element  rapK  of  many  Cicilian  Greek  names.^ 
Whether  Nahor  was  originally  also  the  name  of  a  deity  ^  or 
merely  that  of  a  lost  tribe  resident  about  Haran  *  is  yet  uncer- 
tain. Perhaps  Nahor  was  both  a  deity  and  tribe.  Milcah, 
his  wife,  the  daughter  of  Haran  (Gen.  11 :  29 ;  22 :  20,  J), 
assumed  by  Driver  to  have  been  a  tribe,  in  name  at  least, 
represents  Milkatu,  the  Istar  or  Venus  of  Haran.    That  Haran 

*  Jensen,  ZA,  vol.  vi.  p.  70,  Hittites,  p.  153. 
2  See  article  by  Sachau,  ZA,  vol.  vi. 

8  Jensen,  ZA,  vol.  xi.  p.  300.     Skipwith,  JQR,  vol.  xi.  1899,  p.  254. 

*  Driver,  article  "  Nahor,"  Hastings  DB. 


12  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

was  a  deity  has  been  inferred  by  the  name  Beth  Haran  (Num. 
32:  36).  Etymologically  it  suggests  (pH  coming  from  "IH, 
mountain,  BDB  Lex.)  a  mountain  people  or  district.  More 
likely,  however,  Haran  is  only  a  deviated  spelling  of  Haran 
the  original  home  of  Israel  ^  according  to  JE.  This  last  ex- 
planation fits  in  well  with  Milcah,  a  goddess  worshipped  at 
Haran,  being  Haran's  daughter,  and  that  Haran  died  in 
Northern  Syria. 

Lot  (£0")'7)is  very  obscure.  Among  the  Horites,  the  ancient 
inhabitants  of  Seir  or  Edom,  Lotan  (^D/)  appears  as  a 
prominent  clan  or  tribe  (Gen.  36  :  20,  29),  and  this  clan  may 
be  the  origin  of  Lot,  the  cave  dweller,  the  father  of  Moab  and 
Ammon,  or  Lot  may  be  a  humanized  deity  from  whom  the 
Moabites  and  Ammonites  traced  their  descent.  Cainan  (Gen. 
5 :  9),  equivalent  to  Cain  (Gen.  4 :  17),  has  been  thus  identi- 
fied.2  The  story  of  the  origin  of  Moab  and  Ammon  through 
incest  has  ordinarily  been  regarded  as  having  arisen  from  an 
expression  of  the  hatred  and  contempt  of  Israel  for  the  people 
of  Moab  and  Ammon,  and  very  likely  this  thought  explains 
its  preservation  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  but  originally  it 
probably  was  a  tale  of  womanly  strength  and  thus  of  tribal 
glory  and  honor,  since  the  daughters  of  Lot,  being  with  their 
father  the  sole  survivors  of  some  great  catastrophe,  were 
heroic  enough  to  become  mothers  in  an  unnatural  way  and 
thus  preserve  their  race.^ 

Abraham  can  only  be  understood  by  first  considering  Jacob 
and  Israel.  Historically  the  twelve  tribes  appear  as  the  twelve 
sons  of  Jacob,  probably  first  at  the  time  of  David.  Earlier 
than  this  we  cannot  find  the  twelve  grouped  together  as  Israel. 
None  of  our  general  sources  are  of  an  earlier  date  and  the  one 
earlier  document,  the  song  of  Deborah,  accords  with  their  late 
grouping,  since  this  song  makes  no  mention  of  Judah,  Simeon, 
Levi,  or  Asher,  and  suggests  thus  that  the  idea  of  an  Israel  of 

1  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena  to  the  IJist.  of  Israel,  p.  313.  Budde,  Urgeschichte, 
p.  443. 

2  W.  R.  Smith,  Religion  of  the  Semites,  p.  43. 

*  Gunkel,  Uandkomm.  zum  A.  T.,  Genesis,  p.  197. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  13 

twelve  tribes  corresponding  to  the  twelve  sons  mentioned  in 
Gen.  49,  and  the  stories  of  their  birth,  were  not  yet  current. 
The  number  twelve  is  an  artificial  one,  derived,  according  to 
some,  from  the  twelve  signs  of  the  zodiac ;  but  more  likely 
because  twelve  was  a  standard  way  of  reckoning  peoples,  as 
appears  in  the  twelve  sons  of  Nahor  (Gen.  22:  20-24),  and 
of  Ishmael  (Gen.  25:  13-15). 

Israel's  twelve  tribes  always  fluctuated  according  to  the 
reckoning  of  Joseph  as  one  or  as  two  (Ephraim  and  Manas- 
seh),  Levi  being  omitted.  The  children,  or  sons  of  Israel,  is  the 
name  by  which  the  people  called  themselves  (7{<"1C^^  ^^^)' 
Israel,  then,  was  their  proper  national  name.  This  name,  how- 
ever, belonged  par  excellence  to  the  Northern  Kingdom,  the 
kingdom  represented  especially  by  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.  Is- 
rael accordingly  is  preeminently  the  father  of  Joseph.  Jacob 
clearly  is  an  older  figure  than  Israel,  as  appears  from  the 
story  of  the  change  of  his  name  to  Israel  (Gen.  32:  28; 
35:  10).  Who,  then,  was  Jacob?  Most  naturally  he  represents 
an  ancient  tribe  later  incorporated  or  transmuted  into  Israel, 
or  at  least  later  known  by  that  name.  The  fact  of  the  anti- 
quity of  Jacob  seems  to  have  met  with  confirmation  in  the 
mention  of  Jacob-el  in  the  list  of  places  conquered  in  Palestine 
by  Thothmes  III.  Jacob-el  is  a  tribal  or  place  name  formed 
like  Israel,  Ishmael,  Jerahmeel,  Jezreel.  Mej^er  regards  the 
name  that  of  a  tribe.  His  theory  is  that  the  old  tribe  dis- 
appeared, as  later  Amalek  and  Midian  did,  and  then  Edom 
and  Moab,  and,  in  the  middle  ages,  the  old  Arabian  tribes. 
Thereupon  elements  of  it  entered  into  Israel,  probably  through 
their  preservation  in  Judah,  and  thus  the  name  was  preserved.^ 
W.  Max  Miiller,  on  the  other  hand,  protests  against  the  as- 
sumption that  the  name  can  be  otherwise  than  that  of  a  town  or 
city,  since  the  Canaanites  had  then  long  since  passed  in  civili- 
zation beyond  the  tribal  stage.^  Whether  Jacob-el  represents 
a  tribe  or  place,  Jacob  is  in  Palestine  in  the  sixteenth  century. 
This  fact  is  significant.     Jacob  has  also  been  regarded  as 

1  ZATW,  1886,  9.  2  Asien  und  Europa,  s.  164. 


14  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

originally  a  deity,^  in  view  of  the  wrestling  with  God  (Gen. 
32 :  22-30)  and  the  expression  "  Mighty  One  [of]  Jacob " 
O'pT  *lOi<  Gen.  49:  24).  The  wives  and  concubines  of 
Jacob  are  not  easily  understood.  They  may  represent  Ara- 
mean  tribes  which  pressing  forward  into  the  home  of  Jacob 
or  Jacob-Israel  became  amalgamated  with  that  stock.  Leah 
(nt<7),  meaning  "wild  cow,"  has  been  regarded  as  a  tribe 
whose  totem  was  that  animal,  and  the  same  also  as  the  tribe  of 
Levi  (^"17),  the  latter  being  the  gentilic  designation. 

Mythology  seems  to  have  contributed  the  name  of  Rachel 
(7m  ewe),  since  a  ewe  is  the  symbol  of  the  goddess  Ash- 
toreth  (cf.  [}<V  nnDJ^'i^,  ewes  of  the  flocks,  Dt.  7:  13 ;  28 :  4, 
18,  51).  "  Rachel,  then,  is  the  Ashtoreth,  the  divine  ewe,  the 
goddess  of  the  flock  and  the  moon,  the  tj'pe  of  bride  and 
mother  and  patron  of  the  female  sex."^  Laban  is  also  a 
mythical  figure,  since  his  name  is  the  masculine  form  of  the 
Hebrew  word  for  moon  (p7  lUDy,  moon).  His  city  Haran 
was  famous  for  its  moon  worship.  These  coincidences  cannot 
be  accidental.  With  the  mythical  origin  of  Laban  accords  also 
the  name  of  his  father  Bethuel,  mentioned  above,  showing 
likewise  the  influence  of  mythology. 

That  which  underlies  the  concubines  Bilhah  and  Zilpah  is 
not  clear.  They  may  represent  Aramean  tribes  that  coalesced 
with  the  other  elements  of  ancient  Israel,  or  districts  where 
tribes  dwelt  (as  the  wives  of  Caleb,  1  Chr.  2:  18,  19;  cf.  the 
article  G-enealogy  B.  iv.  35  Hast.  DB,  vol.  ii.),  or  some  mythol- 
ogy may  be  hidden  in  them.  Bilhah  may  have  some  connection 
with  the  clan  Bilhan  of  Benjamin  (1  Chr.  7:  10,  the  name 
also  of  a  clan  of  Edom,  Gen.  36 :  38).  That  Bilhah  was  the 
maid  of  Rachel,  and  Zilpah  of  Leah,  would  seem  to  imply  some 
special  connection  between  the  tribes  Dan  and  Naphtali  and 
the  sons  of  Rachel,  and  Asher  and  Gad  and  the  sons  of  Leah. 
The  stock  of  these  four  tribes  is  supposed  to  have  been  less 
pure  than  that  of  the  other  tribes,  and  hence  their  mothers 

1  Luther,  ZATW,  vol.  xxi.  s.  68  £E. 
a  Skipwith,  JQR,  vol.  xi.  p.  256  ft. 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  15 

were  called  concubines.  This  fact,  alone,  however,  would  not 
be  sufficient,  since  Judah  was  a  tribe  with  a  large  admixture 
of  non-Israelitish  elements.  The  four  tribes  must  have  had 
other  marks  of  inferiority,  or  else  their  inferior  birth  is  due  to 
their  late  origin  or  incorporation  into  Israel.  Wellhausen  re- 
gards Israel  before  the  settlement  in  Canaan  to  have  consisted 
of  only  seven  tribes,  Benjamin,  Dan,  Naphtali,  Gad,  and  Asher 
having  been  recognized  either  as  tribes  or  a  part  of  Israel 
later  on.  The  close  geographical  union  between  the  sons  of 
Rachel,  points  to  their  original  homogeneity  and  is  a  sufficient 
reason  for  their  common  mother.  The  final  grouping  of  the 
six  sons  of  Leah  probably  took  place  under  David,  not,  how- 
ever, without  an  earlier  connection  between  some  of  them. 

Isaac  probably  represents  a  tribe  whose  original  name  may 
have  been  Isaac-el  (7  J^pHV^)  corresponding  to  Ishmael,  Israel, 
etc.  This  tribe  seems  to  have  dwelt  in  Southern  Judah,  since 
the  home  of  the  patriarch  is  placed  there.  Why  the  tribe 
should  form  a  link  in  the  genealogy  and  become  prominent  in 
the  story  is  not  clearly  known.  The  relationship,  however, 
between  Edom  and  Israel  clearly  demanded  for  both  a  com- 
mon father,  and  he  might  well  be  seen  in  an  ancient  tribe 
which  had  its  home  near  the  land  of  both,  and  which  later 
disappeared,  perhaps  through  an  absorption  into  both.  A 
deity  has  also  been  seen  in  Isaac  ^  through  the  occurrence  of 
the  expression  "  Fear  [of]  Isaac  "  (Gen.  31 :  42,  53,  pHV*  "tH^J) 
and  the  meaning  of  the  name,  "  God  smiles,"  has  suggested  an 
underlying  solar  myth.^  In  the  story  of  Rebecca,  the  wife 
taken  from  Paddan-Arara  (Gen.  25  :  20),  is  probably  another 
reminiscence  of  an  ancient  wandering  from  that  land,  Rebekah 
being  a  tribal  name. 

Esau  has  been  identified  with  an  ancient  hunter  god.^  He 
was  probably  then  a  representative  deity  of  Edom. 

Abraham  is  more  difficult  of  explanation  or  identification 
than   the   other  patriarchs.     Since   his  name,  equivalent  to 

1  Luther,  ZATW,  vol.  xxi.  s.  73. 

2  Goldziher,  Mythology  of  the  Hebrews,  p.  92. 
8  Cheyne,  article  "  Esau/'  Encyc.  Biblica. 


16  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Abiram  ^  is  personal  rather  than  tribal,  many  have  seen  in 
him  an  ancient  Semitic  hero,  the  historic  leader  of  a  migration 
from  Northern  Mesopotamia  which  resulted  in  the  growth  of 
the  peoples  Ishmael,  Moab,  Ammon,  Edom,  and  Israel.  This 
is  possible.  Such  an  ancient  migration  probably  took  place 
and  the  memory  of  such  a  leader  might  have  long  lingered. 
The  revealed  religion  of  Israel  has  also  been  thought  to  require  a 
great  leader  antecedent  to  Moses.  The  mention  of  Abraham  in 
Genesis  14  in  connection  with  historical  kings  (especially 
Amraphel,  who  has  been  identified  with  Hammurabi)  has  sug- 
gested that  Abraham  was  a  real  hero ;  but  this  chapter  is  held 
with  probability  to  be  a  midrash,  and  thus  one  of  the  latest  por- 
tions of  Genesis,  into  which  was  woven  with  historical  names 
the  legendary  one  of  Abraham.  The  chapter  then  really 
proves  nothing  respecting  the  historic  character  of  Abraham, 
although  the  inference  is  reasonable  that,  some  of  the  names 
being  historical,  the  others  are  also.  This,  however,  is  not  a 
necessary  conclusion.  The  truth  is  that  Abraham  is  too  early 
in  the  genealogy  to  have  any  real  claim  for  historicity  as  a 
real  person.  The  historical  elements  of  genealogies,  we  have 
seen,  are  the  latest. 

The  kinship  of  Edom  and  Israel  having  been  expressed 
through  Isaac,  and  of  Moab  and  Ammon  through  Lot,  it  re- 
mained to  find  an  expression  of  the  kinship  between  these 
groups  and  other  groups  of  kindred  tribes.  Thus  appeared 
Abraham  and  Terah  in  the  genealogy.  The  latter,  we  have 
already  seen,  came  from  an  ancient  deity,  and  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  Abraham  arose  in  the  same  way,  coming  from  a  deity 
worshipped  in  Southern  Judah,  especially  at  Hebron,  since  the 
narratives  place  there  principally  the  ancient  home  of  Abra- 
ham. This  deity  not  unlikely  was  Ram,  "  lofty  "  (cf.  'Elyon, 
Most-high,  the  name  of  the  god  of  Melchisedek,  Gen.  14 :  22). 
A  southern  Judean  clan  bore  the  name  of  Ram  (1  Chr.  2 :  25). 
Abiram  signifies  also,  "  Father  of  Ram,"  or  "  My  father  is  Ram." 
Our  Old  Testament  narratives,  we  have  seen,  are  later  than 
the  time  of  David  and  represent  throughout  the  Israel  united 

1  Hastings  DB.  vol.  i.  p.  17;  Enci/c.  Biblica,  vol.  i.  col.  23. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  17 

through  him ;  and  from  a  humanized  God,  possibly  of  Hebron, 
where  he  first  reigned,  could  have  arisen  most  naturally  the 
ideal  religious  ancestor  of  the  united  people.  Sarah  (princess), 
the  wife  of  Abraham,  has  been  clearly  identified  as  bearing  the 
name  of  a  goddess.^ 

The  historical  character  of  Abraham,  however,  is  maintained 
by  Ewald,  History  of  Israel^  vol.  I.,  pp.  300  ff. ;  Kittel, 
G-eschichte  der  Hehrcier^  vol.  I.  §  16 ;  Cornill,  History  of  the 
People  of  Israel^  p.  34 ;  Hommel,  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition  ; 
McCurdy,  History  Prophecy  and  the  Monuments,  §  444-448 ; 
Ryle,  article  "  Abraham  "  in  Hastings  HB,  and  others :  but  in 
spite  of  these  authorities  the  basis  for  this  belief  has  always 
seemed  sentimental  rather  than  scientific.  Abraham's  char- 
acter is  a  creation  of  the  prophetic  period.  For  a  clear  treat- 
ment of  the  subject,  see  the  article  on  "Abraham"  by  B.  W. 
Bacon,  in  the  Weio  Worlds  December,  1899. 

Hagar  seems  to  have  been  derived  from  a  people  who  ap- 
pear in  the  post-exilic  literature  as  the  Hagarites  (D^IJin  or 
D^Nnjn,  1  Chr.  5:  10,  19;  cf.  11:  38;  27:  31).  Whether 
the  term  represents  an  actual  tribe  bearing  such  a  name  (such 
a  one  is  mentioned  in  South  Arabian  inscriptions  ^ )  or  whether 
it  was  simply  a  designation  given  to  nomads  is  uncertain. 
(The  root  "IJIH  seems  connected  with  the  Arabic  one  meaning 
to  forsake,  retire ;  cf.  Hegira.)  Hagar's  Egyptian  origin  most 
likely  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  tribes  of  the  Sinaitic  penin- 
sula were  known  to  have  an  admixture  of  Egyptian  blood, 
•derived  possibly  in  part  from  runaway  slaves. 

*  Jensen,  ZA,  vol.  xi.  s.  299. 

2  Winckler,  in  Mitt,  der  Vorderas.  Ges.  1898,  Heft  I.  51, 


18  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


III 

THE  SEPARATE  TRIBES 

1.    Tlie  Sons  of  Leah :  Iteuben,  SimeoUy  Levi,  Judah,  Issachar, 

and  Zebulun 

Reuben,  according  to  all  tradition,  was  the  eldest  of  the  sons 
of  Jacob,  which  seems  to  indicate  some  early  tribal  pre-emi- 
nence. But  this  he  early  lost.  How  or  when  is  unknown. 
In  legend  he  held  intercourse  with  Bilhah,  the  concubine 
of  his  father  (Gen.  35 :  22),  but  the  history  lying  back  of  this 
story  is  not  clear.  Such  an  act  points  to  some  unlawful  hege- 
mony exerted  by  Reuben,  since  to  take  a  father's  wife  or 
concubine  is  equivalent  to  claiming  the  father's  place  (cf. 
2  Sam.  16 :  21 ;  1  Kgs.  2 :  21  ff.).  In  some  way  Reuben  may 
have  endeavored  to  unlawfully  coerce  the  other  tribes,  espe- 
cially the  sons  of  Bilhah;  and  thereby  the  tribe  may  have 
suffered  loss.  The  story  of  the  rebellion  of  Dathan  and 
Abiram  suggests  also  some  ancient  act  of  unlawful  usurpa- 
tion (Num.  16:  1).  In  the  song  of  Deborah,  Reuben  is  rep- 
resented as  slothful  and  inactive  (Judg.  5:  15-17).  In 
Jacob's  blessing  his  excellency  is  gone  (Gen.  49 :  4),  and  in  the 
blessing  of  Moses  the  tribe  is  approaching  extinction  (Dt. 
33 ;  6).  The  tribe  probably  disappeared  early  through  the  en- 
croachments of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites,  although  accord- 
ing to  the  Chronicler  (1  Chr.  5 :  1-6),  families  existed  until 
the  time  of  Tiglath-pileser  (746-728).  Many  of  the  cities 
assigned  to  Reuben  in  Numbers  32 :  37f.  and  Joshua  13 : 
15-23  appear  in  the  inscription  of  Mesha  (about  850  B.C.), 
in  Isaiah  15,  16,  and  in  Jeremiah  48,  in  the  possession  of 
Moab.    From  clans  of  the  names  of  Hezron  and  Carmi  ap- 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  19 

pearing  both  in  connection  with  Judah  and  Reuben  (Num. 
26:  6,  21;  1  Chr.  4:  1;  5:  3),  it  has  been  conjectured  that 
remnants  of  the  Latter  tribe  took  refuge  in  the  former.  But 
Hezron  is  a  name  derived  from  a  permanent  encampment, 
("IVH),  and  is  equivalent  to  "  villager  "  and  thus  might  easily 
arise  in  connection  with  either  tribe  ;  and  Carmi  in  First 
Chronicles  4 :  1  is  suspicious,  probably  a  textual  corruption 
for  Calebo 

Next  to  Reuben  in  age  among  the  sons  of  Jacob  are  Simeon 
and  Levi  (Gen.  29:  31  ff.).  They  are  associated  together  in 
Jacob's  blessing,  in  which  it  is  clearly  implied  that  these  tribes, 
through  some  united  deeds  of  violence,  have  met  with  some 
disaster  which  has  left  tliem  only  scattered  remnants  in  Israel 
(Gen.  49:  5-7).  The  historical  occasion  of  this  is  intimated 
in  the  story  of  the  destruction  of  the  inhabitants  of  Shechem 
related  in  Genesis  84.  The  facts  appear  to  have  been  these. 
Dinah  (the  daughter  of  Leah),  a  kindred  clan  or  small  tribe, 
was  forcibly  brought  into  an  alliance  with  a  Canaanite  clan, 
Hamor,  dwelling  in  Shechem.  This  act  was  resented  by 
the  kindred  tribes  Simeon  and  Levi,  who  treacherously  de- 
stroyed the  Canaanite  people  of  Shechem,  and  then  in  turn, 
almost  annihilated  by  a  coalition  of  the  Canaanites,  they 
became  scattered  in  Israel.  (The  retaking  of  Shechem  by 
the  Canaanites  is  confirmed  by  the  story  of  Abimelech 
(Judg.  9).  The  people  of  the  city  at  that  time  were  in  a 
large  degree  evidently  of  Canaanitish  descent.)  The  rem- 
nants of  Simeon  obtained  a  home  in  the  south  of  Judah.  So 
dwindled  and  insignificant  became  the  tribe  that  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy  83  passes  it  over  in  silence.  In  First 
Chronicles  4 :  24-43,  however,  raids  by  families  of  Simeon, 
either  made  or  recorded  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah,  are 
mentioned.  The  inheritance  of  Simeon  was  regarded,  in 
part  at  least,  within  the  bounds  of  Judah  (Jos.  19:  1-9; 
15 :  20-82  P). 

The  fate  of  Levi  was  quite  different  from  that  of  Simeon. 
The  tribe  regrew  not  as  a  political  community  but  as  a  priestly 
caste.     This  development  took  place  between  the  composition 


20  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

of  Genesis  49  and  Deuteronomy  33.  In  the  latter  Levi  pos- 
sesses the  Thiimmim  and  the  Urim,  or  means  of  divine  com- 
munication (v.  8),  and  the  old  legend  of  fierceness  against 
the  Canaanites  is  transmuted  into  zeal  for  Yahwfe.  The 
original  remnants  of  Levi  may  have  found  refuge  along  with 
those  of  Simeon  in  the  tribe  of  Judali,  and  from  their  abode 
in  sacred  cities  taken  up  the  calling  of  priests.  Possibly  also 
some  original  connection  of  Moses  with  the  tribe  may  have 
contributed  in  this  direction.  The  whole  development  is 
obscure.  In  early  stories  Levites  are  associated  with  Bethle- 
hem-Judah  (Judg.  17:  9;  19:  1)  and  in  the  later  genealogies 
Levitical  families  bear  names  connected  with  the  Judean 
towns,  Hebron,  Libnah  (Libni),  and  Korah  (Ex.  6 :  17f.,  21). 
The  fact  that  these  towns  were  probably  sanctuaries  is  suf- 
ficient, however,  to  give  these  names  to  priestly  families 
without  any  real  historical  Levite  tribal  connection  with 
them. 

In  Genesis  38  Judah  is  said  to  have  separated  himself 
from  his  brethren,  allied  himself  with  a  certain  Adullamite 
named  Hirah,  and  married  a  Canaanitish  woman,  Shua,  by 
whom  he  had  three  sons :  Er,  Onan,  and  Shelah ;  the  two  elder 
of  these  Yahwfe  slew ;  and  afterwards  Judah,  by  his  daughter- 
in-law  Tamar,  had  two  sons,  Zerah  and  Perez.  These  tlu-ee 
surviving  sons,  Shelah,  Zerah,  and  Perez,  represented,  in  later 
Jewish  history  as  given  in  the  priestly  writings,  three  clans 
of  Judah,  that  of  Perez  being  the  most  important.  The  his- 
tory back  of  this  story  seems  to  have  been  the  settlement  of 
Judah  in  the  neighborhood  of  Adullam  and  its  union  with 
a  Canaanitish  population.  Two  early  clans  thus  formed 
seem  also  to  have  perished.  The  loss  of  these  clans  has  also 
been  connected  with  the  disaster  which  overtook  Simeon 
and  Levi  at  Shechem,  in  which  Judah  is  thought  to  liav^e 
shared.  This  is  possible.  Judah  appears  in  early  times 
to  liave  had  none  of  its  later  prominence.  With  Simeon 
and  Levi  he  is  not  mentioned  in  the  song  of  Deborah. 
The  tribe  was  in  a  large  degree  at  that  time  separated 
from   the  other  tribes  by  a  Canaanitish  enclave  consisting 


THE    TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  21 

of  the  territory  of  the  Gibeonites  and  of  the  Jebusites,  who 
occupied  Jerusalem.  No  exploits  of  the  tribe  are  recorded 
in  the  original  stories  of  the  middle  portion  of  the  book  of 
Judges.^ 

The  Calebites  and  the  Jerahmeelites,  recorded  in  First 
Chronicles  2  as  descendants  of  Perez,  are  mentioned  in  First 
Samuel  27 :  10 ;  30 :  14  as  though  distinct  from  Judah,  and 
there  is  little  doubt  but  that  these  two  clans,  not  yet  regarded 
as  belonging  to  the  children  of  Israel,  were  incorporated  into 
Judah  by  David,  and  that  it  was  through  some  such  enlarge- 
ment under  the  influence  of  the  shepherd  king  that  Judah 
obtained  the  later  superiority  which  the  priestly  writers  gave 
the  tribe  from  the  first.  Caleb  in  the  narratives  of  the 
Hexateuch  and  Judges  is  the  Kenizzite  or  son  of  Kenaz 
(Num.  32:  12;  Josh.  14:  6,  14;  15:  17;  Judg.  1:  13;  3: 
9,  11),  who  appears  in  Genesis  36:  40,42  among  the  tribes 
of  Edom,  and  Caleb  is  represented  as  having  joined  Israel  or 
been  a  member  of  Israel  during  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness. 
The  true  union,  however,  clearly  took  place  under  David. 
The  later  history  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  is  that  of  the 
southern  kingdom  of  Israel. 

In  the  song  of  Deborah  both  Issachar  and  Zebulun  are  men- 
tioned in  terms  of  especial  honor.  The  princes  of  Issachar 
were  with  Deborah.  Out  of  Zebulun  came  rulers  and  Zebu- 
lun was  a  people  that  jeoparded  their  lives  unto  death  (Judg. 
5 :  14,  15,  18).  Clearly  in  that  struggle  with  the  Canaanites 
these  two  tribes  took  a  most  noteworthy  part.  This  ancient 
prowess  Issachar  seems  to  have  lost  under  the  Hebrew  mon- 
archy, for  in  Genesis  49  the  symbol  of  the  tribe  is  a  strong  ass 
crouching  down  beneath  the  sheepfolds,  and  a  servant  under 
task-work  (vv.  14f.).  Zebulun  in  this  chapter  is  simply 
described  in  reference  to  its  dwelling-place  on  the  sea-coast 
(v.  13).  Marked  is  the  change  of  tone  toward  these  tribes  in 
Deuteronomy  33 :  18f.,  where  a  note  of  prosperity  is  sounded, 
and  it  is  said : 

1  The  story  of  the  judgeship  of  Othniel  is  from  the  Deuteronomic  editor,  and 
of  doubtful  historicity. 


22  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

"  They  shall  call  the  peoples  unto  the  mountain ; 
There  shall  they  offer  sacrifices  of  righteousness : 
For  they  shall  suck  the  abundance  of  the  seas, 
And  the  hidden  treasures  of  the  sand  "  (v.  19). 

These  statements  indicate  commercial  prosperity  associated 
with  gatherings  at  some  mountain  sanctuary.  Religious  festi- 
vals were  probably  utilized  as  fairs  or  opportunities  of  trade 
by  the  surrounding  peoples,  and  thus  the  tribes  infected  with 
the  mercantile  spirit  of  the  adjoining  Phenicians  became  pros- 
perous. Issachar's  name  is  mentioned  as  that  of  one  of  the 
districts  from  which  Solomon  derived  his  revenue  (1  Kgs. 
4:  17).  Baasha  is  said  to  have  belonged  to  the  house  of 
Issachar  (1  Kgs.  15:  27).  Among  the  minor  Judges  was 
Tola,  the  son  of  Puah,  the  son  of  Dodo,  a  man  of  Issachar 
(Judg.  10 :  ]).  In  First  Chronicles  7 :  1,  both  Tola  and  Puah 
are  the  names  of  clans.  The  minor  judge  probably  was  an 
eponymous  hero.  But  of  special  interest  is  the  fact  that 
Dodo  (Tm)  is  his  father,  since  this  word  and  the  mandrakes 
(D^J^ITl)  through  whose  gift  was  brought  about  the  concep- 
tion of  Issachar  (Gen.  30 :  16  f .)  represent  the  root  or  word 
which  appears  in  the  name  of  a  divinity,  mi"!,  on  the  Moab- 
ite  stone  (1.  12).  The  worship  of  this  deity,  then,  was  prob- 
ably part  of  the  early. religion  of  the  tribe.  Strangely  enough, 
no  mention  is  made  of  Zebulun  in  the  genealogies  of  First 
Chronicles,  neither  is  the  tribe  mentioned  in  Fii-st  and  Second 
Samuel  or  First  and  Second  Kings.  A  minor  judge  is  as- 
signed to  the  tribe  in  Judges  12:  11  and  the  name  is  con- 
joined in  Isaiah  9 :  1  (8  :  23)  with  Naphthali. 

2.    Tlie  Sons  of  Rachel :  Joseph  and  Benjamin 

According  to  the  narratives  of  Genesis,  Rachel  bore  Joseph 
in  Paddan  Aram  (30 :  23),  and  later  Benjamin  in  Canaan 
(35 :  18),  and  Joseph  had  two  sons  born  in  Egypt,  Manasseh 
and  Ephraim  (41 :  50  ff).  The  simplest  explanation  of  these 
statements  is  that  the  tribe  Joseph  when  in  Egypt  developed 
into  two  tribes  and  that  the  tribe  Benjamin  arose  after  the 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  23 

settlement  in  Canaan.  This  last  consideration  is  confirmed 
by  the  name  Benjamin,  son  of  the  right  hand,  that  is,  of  the 
South.  Benjamin  was  the  most  southerly  of  the  divisions  of 
the  sons  of  Rachel  or  the  house  of  Joseph.  But  the  develop- 
ment of  Manasseh  and  Ephraim  in  Egypt  is  uncertain.  The 
preference  of  the  younger  Ephraim  over  the  elder  Manasseh 
in  the  story  of  their  presentation  before  the  dying  Israel  (Gen. 
48 :  13  ff.),  reflects  the  prominence  of  Ephraim  in  the  later 
history  of  Israel.  From  the  time  of  the  monarchy  onward 
Ephraim  clearly  surpassed  Manasseh  in  political  importance. 
Jeroboam,  who  established  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel,  was 
an  Ephraimite  and  in  the  prophets  Ephraim  is  repeatedly  used 
to  designate  the  northern  kingdom.  In  the  blessing  of  Moses, 
Ephraim  has  his  ten  thousands  and  Manasseh  only  thousands 
(Dt.  33:  17).  In  the  early  history  it  was  probably  the  other 
way,  since  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  appears  to  have  been  veiy 
large,  occupying  territory  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan.  This 
importance  may  have  given  it  eldership.  It  has  also  been  sug- 
gested that  Manasseh's  eldership  may  have  arisen  from  a 
kingship  exercised  by  Gideon,  but  this  kingsliip  is  uncertain.^ 
A  more  plausible  conjecture  is  that  the  name  Ephraim  was 
originally  geographical :  the  term  "  hill  country  of  Ephraim  " 
(D^"l55<  "in)  occurs  some  thirty  times.  Hence  the  idea  of 
the  tribe  Ephraim  may  have  been  an  afterthought  following 
the  settlement  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  in  Canaan.  In  the  early 
history  of  Israel  the  tribe  of  Joseph  seems  to  have  been  undi- 
vided ;  2  even  Benjamin  was  clearly  reckoned  as  belonging  to 
it  (2  Sam.  19 :  20).  The  one  tribe  appears  in  Genesis  49,  where 
there  is  no  reference  to  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  but  only  to 
Joseph.  In  the  song  of  Deborah,  however,  Ephraim  and 
Machir,  representing  Manasseh,  are  mentioned.  This  silence 
in  our  earliest  source  concerning  a  tribe  Joseph  favors  a  con- 
jecture of  Winckler^  that  Joseph,  like  Jacob,  according  to  a 

1  Moore,  Comvi.  on  Judrjea,  p.  239. 

2  Jos.  16:1;  17:  14  JE  (the  added  words  "  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,"  Jos.  17 : 
17,  are  probably  a  gloss). 

8  Geschichte  Israels,  Theil  II.  67-77.     Cf.  Hogg  in  Enc.  Bib.  2582. 


24  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

view  mentioned  above,  has  a  mythological  significance  and 
that  he  is  a  personification  of  the  northern  kingdom,  and 
that  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  are  the  proper  tribal  names. 

The  early  tribe  Joseph,  however,  the  early  clan  Manasseh 
developing  into  a  tribe,  and  the  location  Ephraim  giving  rise 
to  a  tribe  of  the  same  name,  is  the  more  satisfactory  view. 
Apparent  testimony  to  the  antiquity  of  the  tribe  is  also  found 
in  a  Joseph-el  appearing  in  the  Egyptian  lists  with  Jacob-el 
(see  page  13).  Part  of  the  tribe  may  at  that  early  period  have 
been  in  Palestine  as  well  as  in  Egypt,  or  this  may  be  a  memo- 
rial of  its  previous  existence  left  after  the  descent  into  Egypt.^ 

According  to  Deuteronomy  3  :  13  and  Numbers  32 :  33  (P) 
the  territory  of  Manasseh,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan, 
was  acquired  in  the  time  of  Moses  before  the  tribe  crossed  the 
river.  Many  scholars,  however,  believe  the  order  of  posses- 
sion to  have  been  the  reverse.  The  argument  for  this  view 
is  as  follows :  (1)  Gilead  is  said  to  have  been  possessed  by 
Machir,  the  son  or  clan  of  Manasseh  (Num.  32:  39  JE),  but 
in  the  song  of  Deborah  (Judg.  5:  14),  Machir  is  alluded  to 
in  terms  which  show  that  he  probably  represents  the  tribe 
west  of  the  Jordan,  hence  that  location  was  then  his  home  and 
his  settlement  in  Gilead  was  subsequent.  (2)  Bashan  is  also 
represented  as  the  conquest  of  Jair  the  son  of  Manasseh  (Num. 
32 :  41  JE),  but  since  this  Jair  appears  among  the  judges  of  Is- 
rael (Judg.  10  :  3),  his  conquest  also  would  naturally  be  i)laced 
later  than  the  western  settlement.  (3)  The  house  of  Joseph 
is  mentioned  (Joshua  17 :  14)  as  having  only  one  lot,  i.  e.  the 
territory  west  of  the  Jordan.  This  representation  is  also  re- 
garded as  inconsistent  with  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  having 
already  a  lot  east  of  the  Jordan.  Putting,  then,  these  three 
coincidences  together,  it  has  been  held  that  Gilead,  Baslian, 
and  Argob  were  conquered  from  the  west  of  the  Jordan. 
This  view  has  failed,  however,  to  win  acceptance  from  Driver 
and  George  Adam  Smith.^ 

1  The  reading  Joseph-el,  however,  is  not  entirely  certain. 

2  See  the  article  "  Mauasseh "  iu  the  Hastings  DB  and  Ilist.  Geog.  Holy 
Land,  p.  577,  n.  1. 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  25 

The  mention  of  Machir  in  Judges  5 :  14  proves  at  once  the 
antiquity  of  this  clan,  which  is  also  confirmed  by  the  story  of 
Genesis  50  :  23,  where  the  children  of  Machir,  the  son  of  Ma- 
nasseh,  are  said  to  have  been  born  on  the  knees  of  Joseph,  i.  e. 
adopted  by  Joseph.  The  clan  Machir,  then,  at  one  time  was 
reckoned  a  son  of  Joseph.  Possibly  from  Machir  ("lO!2,  stem 
"130,  to  sell)  arose  the  story  of  the  sale  of  Joseph  into  Egypt. 
Back  of  the  story  of  Joseph  in  Egypt  probably  lie  two  facts : 
(1)  the  tribe  of  Joseph  sojourned  in  Egypt,  and  (2)  a  member 
of  that  or  a  kindred  Semitic  tribe  rose  to  distinction  at  the 
court  of  a  king  of  Egypt.  Famine  also  was  a  cause  of  the 
sojourn  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  in  Egypt. 

No  tribe  after  Joseph,  Judah,  and  Levi,  is  more  prominent 
in  the  Old  Testament  narratives  than  that  of  Benjamin.  Tlie 
explanation  of  the  name  and  late  birth  has  already  been  given. 
The  tribe  according  to  Genesis  was  the  latest  of  the  twelve, 
and  located  on  the  southern  slopes  of  the  hill  country  of 
Ephraim.  In  the  patriarchal  legends  the  son  of  Jacob  was 
not  only  called  Benjamin  by  his  father,  but  also  Ben-oni,  "son 
of  my  sorrow,"  by  his  mother,  because  she  recognized  at  his 
birth  her  approaching  death  (Gen.  35 :  16-20  JE) .  This  story 
is  probably  a  folk  endeavor  to  explain  the  name  of  a  clan 
Ben-oni,  having  some  connection,  in  all  likelihood,  with  Beth- 
aven  or  more  properly  Beth-on  ([IN  il'D),  "house  of  wealth," 
a  town  near  Ai.  From  a  change  of  spelling  or  pronunciation 
the  place  became  Beth-aven  (pj<  HO)  "house  of  vanity,"  a 
term  used  in  the  prophets,  apparently  in  scorn,  of  Bethel 
(Hos.  4 :  15  ;  5 :  8 ;  10  :  5).  Beth-on,  "  house  of  On,"  has 
been  also  regarded  as  identical  with  Bethel,  "  house  of  God," 
the  last  member  of  the  name  being  that  of  the  Egyptian  sun- 
god  On.i  In  this  neighborhood  most  likely  the  tomb  of  Rachel 
was  pointed  out,  and  hence  her  death  was  associated  with  Ben- 
oni  ;  and  this  story  of  Rachel's  pains  may  also  have  suggested 
the  idea  of  Rachel  weeping  given  in  Jeremiah  31 :  15. 

The  tribe  of  Benjamin  seems  to  have  been  especially  warlike, 

1  Sayce,  Patriarchal  Palestine,  p.  191. 


26  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

being  likened  in  Genesis  49 :  27  to  a  ravening  wolf.  This 
arose  in  part  perhaps  from  the  location  of  the  tribe.  Its  ter- 
ritory was  "  the  site  of  more  fortresses,  sieges,  forays,  battles, 
and  massacres  than  perhaps  any  other  part  of  the  country."  ^ 
The  ground  of  Benjamin  was  the  scene  of  the  struggle 
between  Saul  and  the  Philistines,  and  of  the  border  wars  be- 
tween Israel  and  Judah.  Here  also  resistance  was  felt  when 
Israel  pressed  into  Canaan.  The  battles  of  Ai  and  Aijalon 
were  fought  within  its  territory.  The  land  might  be  attacked 
from  tlie  east  by  way  of  the  valleys  extending  toward  Jericho 
—  as  occurred  early  in  the  Moabite  domination  back  of  the 
story  of  the  Benjaminite  Ehud  (Judg.  3)  — and  from  the  west 
by  the  Philistines  —  hence  their  garrisons  and  the  counter 
ones  of  Saul  within  the  land  of  Benjamin  —  and  close  at  hand 
also  were  the  cities  of  the  Canaanitish  Gibeonites  and  also 
Jerusalem  of  the  Jebusites.  It  is  possible  indeed  that  through 
the  warrior  king  Saul,  Benjamin  first  obtained  its  true  tribal 
significance,  although  this  supposition  ^  is  opposed  by  the 
mention  of  the  tribe  in  the  song  of  Deborah  (Judg.  5 :  14). 
At  the  dismemberment  of  the  kingdom  Benjamin  seems  to 
have  adhered  to  Jeroboam,  but  gradually  in  the  later  history 
the  territory  passed  under  the  control  of  Judah,  so  that  the 
tribe  was  reckoned  as  having  adhered  to  the  house  of  David ; 
and  in  the  post-exilic  period,  Jewish  territory  embracing  that 
of  the  ancient  tribe,  Benjamin,  after  Judah  and  Levi,  has  the 
most  prominent  place  in  the  genealogies  (cf.  1  Ch.  7 :  6-11 ; 
8 ;  9 :  35-44).  The  story  of  the  almost  complete  annihilation 
of  the  tribe  recorded  in  Judges  20-21  belongs  in  its  present 
form  to  the  priestly  writings.  Some  real  history  undoubtedly 
is  behind  it,  for  it  is  improbable  that  it  could  have  originated 
simply  from  any  early  Judsean  hatred  or  contempt  of  the 
tribe ;  but  the  history  itself  is  unknown. 

1  G.  A.  Smith,  IJist.  Geoij.  of  Holy  Land,  p.  289. 

2  Made  by  Winckler,   Geschichte  Israels,  Theil  II.     See  "  Benjamin,"  Ency. 
Bib.  534. 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  27 


3.    The  Sons  of  the  two  Maids :  Ban,  Naphtali,  Gad,  and  Asher 

The  suggestion  of  the  late  or  mixed  origin  of  these  tribes 
has  already  been  mentioned  in  connection  with  their  mothers. 
The  original  home  of  Dan  on  the  southeast  border  of  Eph- 
raim  and  Benjamin  points  to  an  identity  of  stock  with  the 
house  of  Joseph,  and  the  early  kinship  reflected  in  the  relation 
of  the  mothers  need  not  be  doubted;  and  perhaps  Naphtali's 
territory  is  sufficiently  contiguous  to  that  of  Manasseh  to  point 
in  the  same  direction ;  or  a  close  bond  of  brotherhood  may 
have  been  formed  between  the  northern  colony  of  Dan  and 
the  adjoining  people  of  Naphtali,  and  thus  may  the  two  tribes 
have  been  grouped  as  the  sons  of  the  maid  of  Rachel.  The 
home  of  Dan  on  the  frontier  probably  contributed  to  race-ad- 
mixture. The  story  of  Samson  seeking  a  wife  among  the 
daughters  of  the  Philistines  may  represent  a  not  uncommon 
occurrence.  The  expansion  of  the  tribe  was  not  only  hindered 
by  the  resistance  of  the  Canaanites,  but  it  seems  to  have 
been  unable  to  hold  its  own  against  them  and  to  have 
been  crowded  into  a  small  district  about  Zorah  and  Eshtaol 
(Judg.  1 :  34  f). 

This  led  to  the  migration  of  a  portion  of  the  tribe  and  their 
forcible  colonization  at  Laish  near  the  headwaters  of  the  Jor- 
dan (Judg.  18).  The  remnant  left  behind  was  probably  ulti- 
mately absorbed  into  Judah.  The  possession  in  the  north 
from  the  tribal  name  of  their  city,  famed  as  a  sanctuary,  is 
very  frequently  mentioned  as  the  extreme  limit  of  Israel. 
The  tribe,  however,  was  very  small.  According  to  the  tradi- 
tion preserved  in  Numbers  26 :  42  f,  it  had  only  one  family, 
and  it  is  not  mentioned  by  the  Chronicler  unless  enigmatically 
under  the  name  Aher  "other"  (1  Chron.  7:  12"). 

In  Judges  5 :  17  Dan  is  represented  as  taking  no  part  in 
the  rising  against  Sisera  and  the  question  is  asked,  "  Why  does 
he  sojourn  in  ships  ? "'  The  reference  to  ships  is  difficult  of 
explanation.  Assuming  the  text  to  be  correct  and  the  refer- 
ence to  the  southern  Dan,  it  would  imply  that  the  tribe  at 


28  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

some  early  time  reached  the  sea-coast.^  Joppa  then  might  be 
regarded  as  having  at  one  time  belonged  to  Dan.  But  the 
parallelism  seems  to  require  a  reference  to  the  northern  Dan. 
Then  the  words  would  mean  a  dependency  upon  the  sea- 
going Phenicians  ^  or  service  perhaps  as  soldiers  upon  their 
vessels.^  In  Genesis  49 :  16,  Dan,  it  is  said,  shall  judge  his 
people  as  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel.  The  reference  is  not 
probably  to  the  judgeship  of  Samson,  but  to  tribal  activity, 
i.  e.  Dan  shall  have  tribal  right  in  Israel.  This  expres- 
sion would  imply  a  small  people  whose  tribal  right  the  author 
would  vindicate.  The  tribe  is  also  compared  to  an  adder  in 
the  path  and  in  Deuteronomy  33 :  22  to  a  lion's  whelp.  Like 
the  men  of  Benjamin,  the  Danites  clearly  were  of  a  fierce  and 
warlike  disposition,  a  fact  suggested  by  their  treatment  of 
Micah  (Judg.  18 :  14-27). 

The  tribe  of  Naphtali  figures  but  little  either  in  the  remi- 
niscences or  history  of  Israel.  Barak,  the  hero  of  the  song  of 
Deborah,  was  probably  of  the  tribe,  but  otherwise  the  tribe  is 
not  known  through  deeds,  but  was  distinguished  chiefly  for 
its  location.  It  is  mentioned  as  a  district  in  connection  with 
Solomon's  government  (1  Kgs.  4:  14).  The  exact  text  of  the 
figurative  reference  in  Genesis  49:  21  is  uncertain;  but 
whether  we  find  therein  a  hind  or  a  terebinth,  the  reference  is 
to  the  fruitfulness  of  the  land.*  This  appears  also  again  in 
Deuteronomy  33:  23.  Ancient  and  modern  writere  vie  with 
one  another  in  praising  the  soil  and  climate  of  the  territory 
owned  by  Naphtali.  It  was  abundantly  irrigated  and  its  pro- 
ductions were  rich  and  varied.  The  territory  of  Xaphtali 
(Josh.  19 ;  32-39)  extended  from  the  far  North  close  under 
Lebanon  along  the  west  side  of  the  Jordan  to  a  point  a  little 
south  of  the  lake  of  Gennesareth. 

The  full  brotherhood  of  Gad  and  Asher  may  have  arisen 
from  some  ancient  actual  close  kinship,  which  their  geograph- 

1  George  Adam  Smith,  Hist.  Geog.  Hdy  Land,  p.  220. 

2  G.  F.  Moore,  Judges,  p.  155. 

8  Rndde,  Kurzer  Hand  Commentar  Richier,  p.  46. 

*  The  AV  and  RV  of  y.  21b  is  certainly  wrong.  There  is  no  reference  to 
eloquence. 


THE   TRIBES   OF  ISRAEL  29 

ical  separation  does  not  forbid,  as  is  seen  in  the  instance  of  the 
southern  and  northern  Dan.  More  likely,  however,  the  con- 
nection may  be  cb-awn  from  their  names,  since  both  Asher 
and  Gad  are  deities  of  good  fortune  and  the  grouping  of  the 
two  tribes  under  the  common  name  Zilpah  may  be  a  memo- 
rial of  a  common  worship  of  those  deities.^ 

Gad  is  a  tribe  that  emerges  late  rather  than  early,  as  the 
story  of  its  birth  might  indicate.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the 
song  of  Deborah,  Gilead  api^areutly  taking  its  place  (Judg. 
5  :  17).  In  Genesis  49  it  is  only  mentioned  with  a  play  upon 
its  name,  as  a  tribe  engaged  in  border  warfare  (v.  19),  but  the 
Moabite  stone  of  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  speaks  of 
the  men  of  Gad  (1.  10)  and  in  Deuteronomy  33 :  20  a  wide 
extent  of  territory  is  clearl}*  indicated  as  belonging  to  the 
tribe.  The  tradition  of  the  prowess  of  the  men  of  Gad,  also 
mentioned  in  Deuteronomy  33 :  20,  is  preserved  in  First 
Chronicles  12 :  8,  14 ;  "  Their  faces  were  like  the  faces  of 
lions  and  they  were  as  swift  as  the  roes  upon  the  mountains." 
"  He  that  was  least  was  equal  to  a  hundred,  and  he  that  was 
greatest  to  a  thousand,"  According  to  JE  (Xum.  32 :  34—38)  ^ 
Gad  (vv,  32-36)  possessed  cities  both  north  and  south  of 
those  of  Reuben,  whose  territory,  then,  was  an  enclave  within 
the  other  tribe.  According  to  P.  Gad's  possessions  were 
entirely  north  of  those  of  Reuben  (Josh.  13 :  15  ff.). 

The  name  Asher  or  its  equivalent  appears  in  Egyptian 
records  or  inscriptions  among  the  peoples  or  districts  conquered 
in  Palestine  by  Seti  and  Raamses  II.  about  1400  B.C.  and 
located  just  where  the  tribe  of  Asher  dwelt.^  This  coinci- 
dence of  name  and  place  cannot  be  accidental.  One  tribe  of 
Israel,  in  name  at  least,  was  in  Canaan  long  before  Israel  is  sup- 
posed generally  to  have  crossed  the  Jordan.  A  solution  of  this 
fact  has  been  found  in  the  supposition  that  the  Israelite  Asher 
left  the  land  of  Goshen  earlier  than  the  other  tribes  and  migrated 

1  See  the  article  "  Gad,"  Ency.  Bib.  1579-1587. 

2  Num.  32 :  1-38  represents  a  free  working  over  by  a  priestly  writer  of  a  JE 
narrative. 

*  Miiller,  Asien  und  Europa,  236  ff. 


30  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

directly  to  its  site  in  western  Galilee.^  A  simpler  solution 
is  that  the  Asher  of  Israel  took  its  name  from  the  ancient  one 
and  perhaps  was  largely  of  tlie  same  stock  as  well  as  locality. 
This  Canaanitish  element  in  Asher,  suggested  not  only  by  its 
accredited  descent  from  a  concubine,  seems  confirmed  by  its 
non-participation  with  its  immediate  neighbors  Zobulun  and 
Issachar  in  the  struggle  under  Barak  against  the  Canaanites. 
According  to  the  song  of  Deborah,  Asher  "sat  still  at  the 
haven  of  the  sea  and  abode  by  his  creeks  "  (Judg.  5 :  17). 

But  this  is  not  the  only  link  connecting  Asher  with  ancient 
Canaan.  Heber  and  Malchiel  are  clans  of  Asher  (Gen.  46 :  17 ; 
Num.  26:  45;  1  Chron.  7:  30,  31),  and  both  of  these  names 
appear  in  the  Amarna  tablets  of  the  fourteenth  century  B.C. 
The  former  is  identical  with  that  of  the  Habiri  whose  inva- 
sion alarmed  the  Egyptian  viceroys  of  Palestine,  and  the  latter 
with  Milkili,  the  writer  of  several  of  the  letters,  and  who  also 
seems  to  have  finally  allied  himself  with  the  Habiri.  This 
coincidence  may,  however,  be  entirely  accidental  and  there 
may  be  no  connection  between  the  Amarna  people  and  the 
Hebrew  tribe.  In  2  Sam.  2:  9  (if  nt^^NH  is  the  true  text) 
the  Asherites  are  mentioned  among  the  adherents  of  IshbaaL 
In  the  blessings  of  Jacob  and  Moses  the  tribe  is  only  cele- 
brated for  the  fruitfulness  of  its  soil  and  for  its  mineral 
wealth  (Gen.  49 :  20 ;  Dt.  33 :  24  f ).  Beyond  being  men- 
tioned in  First  Kings  4 :  16  as  a  district,  Asher  does  not  ap- 
pear later  in  the  non-priestly  writings  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  connection  with  the  history  of  Israel.  No  distinguished 
person  is  recorded  as  having  come  from  the  tribe. 

The  tribes  of  Israel  practically  disappeared  after  their  final 
acquisition  of  Canaan.  They  had  no  importance  under  the  new 
order  of  things.  The  bond  of  union  between  men  became  the 
city  or  the  factions  of  state  created  by  rivalries  for  kingly 
power.  The  old  tribes  seem  essentially  to  have  vanished 
save  in  song  and  story  until  resurrected  in  the  Jewish  com- 
munity through  the  zeal  to  prove  the  legitimacy  of  the  true 
members  of  Israel. 

1  Hommel,  Ancierd  Heh.  Tradition,  p.  226. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  31 


IV 

THE  SETTLEMENT  OF  THE  TRIBES  IN  CANAAN 

According  to  the  priestly  and  Deuteronomic  narratives  all 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel  sojourned  in  Egypt,  —  their  tribal  growth 
from  simple  families  having  indeed  there  taken  place,  —  left 
at  the  same  time,  received  the  law  at  Sinai,  wandered  some 
forty  years  in  the  desert,  principally  south  or  southeast  of 
Judah,  encompassed  the  land  of  Edom,  and  passing  through 
or  around  the  territory  of  Ammon  and  Moab,  conquered  the 
districts  of  Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorite,  and  Og,  king  of 
Bashan,  where  two  and  a  half  thljes  settled,  and  then  the  re- 
mainder, with  also  the  warriors  of  the  two  and  a  half  tribes, 
crossed  the  Jordan  near  Jericho,  destroyed  that  city  and  Ai, 
and  then  in  two  vigorous  campaigns  defeated  the  allied  Ca- 
naanite  kings  in  the  South  and  in  the  North,  capturing  thus 
tliirty-one  kings  and  subduing  the  entire  land,  which,  bereft 
of  its  inhabitants  (except  the  Gibeonites  with  whom  a  treaty 
had  been  made),  was  apportioned  by  lot  among  the  nine  and  a 
half  tribes.  The  older  documents  J  and  E,  which  are  pre- 
served only  in  fragments,  represent  the  conquest  as  being  far 
less  complete  and  in  certain  instances  undertaken  by  tribes 
separately  (cf.  Judg.  1).  But  none  of  these  accounts,  as  al- 
ready mentioned,  are  based  apparently  upon  contemporary 
records,  and  all  are  more  or  less  ideal  in  character  and  give  a 
memory  of  the  past  shaped  in  a  certain  degree  by  later  history ; 
hence  the  problem  of  determining  the  real  course  of  events. 
The  materials,  however,  are  very  scanty  for  reconstructing 
this  early  history  of  Israel,  and  all  suggestions  must  be  received 
as  mere  tentative  endeavors  to  arrive  more  nearly  at  the  truth. 

The  very  sojourn  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt  has 
been  questioned,  and  the  opinion  has  been  advanced  that  the 


32  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

story  of  this  sojourn  may  have  arisen  from  a  confusion  of 
names,  since  the  region  of  Edom  and  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula 
where  Israel  dwelt  had  a  name,  Muzri,  essentially  the  same  as 
the  Hebrew  word  for  Egypt  (Mizraim).i  But  the  story  of  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt  seems  to  be  too  thoroughly  embedded  in  the 
Old  Testament  literature  not  to  have  some  real  historical 
basis.  It  is  an  open  question,  however,  whether  all  of  the  tribes 
under  their  later  names  dwelt  there  or  whether  the  sojourn 
was  not  principally  confined  to  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  since  its 
patriarch  is  so  prominent  in  the  story  of  the  descent  into 
Egypt,  We  have  already  seen  reason  for  assuming  that  Ben- 
jamin and  the  four  sons  of  the  maids  represent  tribes  indige- 
nous to  their  so-called  later  homes  in  Canaan.  The  Canaanites 
and  the  children  of  Israel  racially  were  of  the  same  stock,  speak- 
ing the  same  language  in  the  end,  and  readily  amalgamating 
together,  and  Canaanitish  communities  becoming  Israelitish 
through  the  yoke  of  a  common  government  and  the  accep- 
tance of  the  worship  of  Yahwe,  could  readily  be  imagined, 
through  a  patriarch  eponym,  as  once  having  formed  part  of 
the  early  stock  of  Israel.  That  indeed  which  took  place  in 
the  case  of  the  Calebites,  although  not  forming  a  distinct  tribe, 
whereby  Caleb  becomes  a  hero  of  the  sojourn  in  the  desert, 
may  have  especially  taken  place  in  the  case  of  the  Asherites, 
Gadites,  or  Danites,  and  thus  their  eponyms  or  patriarchs  have 
been  given  a  place  among  Jacob's  sons  and  a  part  in  the  de- 
scent into  Egypt.  All  tribes,  then,  need  not  be  thought  of  as 
having  sojourned  in  Egypt,  some  being  of  a  later  origin,  and 
this  later  origin  may  be  due  in  some  instances  in  reality  to  an 
earlier  one.  This  we  have  seen  probably  to  have  been  the  case 
in  respect  to  Asher.  Jacob  and  Joseph  we  also  have  found  to 
have  been  very  early  in  Canaan.  This  fact  of  Jacob,  however, 
being  thus  there,  accords  with  the  Old  Testament  tradition ; 
and  within  recent  years  also  Israel  has  been  found  in  Canaan 
just  when  the  people  ought,  according  to  the  most  general  view, 
to  have  been  in  Egypt.  The  period  of  the  Exodus  is  usuall}'' 
assigned  to  the  reign  of  Merenphtah  or  shortly  following,  in 

1  Winckler,  Geschichte  Israels,  I.  8.  50. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  33 

the  thirteenth  or  not  later  than  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
century.  The  reasons  for  this  assignment  have  been,  first,  the 
domination  of  Palestine  by  Raamses  II.  and  his  predecessors, 
thus  giving  no  opportunity  apparently  for  Israel's  settlement 
at  the  same  time  there  without  some  inkling  of  the  fact  in 
the  Old  Testament  stories ;  and  secondly,  the  discovery  of 
Pithom,  a  store  city  built,  according  to  Ex.  1 :  11,  by  Israel, 
in  a  city  built  by  Raamses  II.  Hence  the  period  of  the  so- 
journ and  Exodus  seemed  fixed.  But  in  1893  was  discovered 
an  inscription  of  the  reign  of  Merenphtah  mentioning  Israel 
as  though  at  that  time  dwelling  in  the  central  or  northern 
part  of  Palestine,  and  as  being  an  agricultural  people.  Either, 
then,  the  customary  date  of  the  exodus  is  too  late,  or  a  portion  of 
Israel  went  earlier  from  Egypt  to  Palestine,  or  a  portion  never 
went  down  at  all.  Accepting  one  of  the  two  latter  alterna- 
tives as  the  most  probable,  it  illustrates  the  simple  fact  that 
the  Biblical  accounts  are  accustomed  to  present  as  a  united 
movement  of  the  entire  people  that  which  represents  the  his- 
tory of  only  a  fraction.  This  furnishes  another  reason  for 
believing  that  not  all  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  sojourned  in 
Egypt.  This  sojourn,  then,  may  have  been  confined  princi- 
pally to  the  tribe  of  Joseph  and  even  some  elements  of  this,  as 
we  have  found,  may  have  been  left  in  Palestine. 

Another  source  of  confusion  in  regard  to  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt  may  also  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  Goshen  is  not 
only  a  district  name  of  Egypt,  but  also  of  Southern  Pales- 
tine along  the  borders  of  Edom  (Josh.  10:  41;  11:  16  ;  also 
the  name  of  a  city  of  southern  Judah,  15:  51).  Tribes 
which  had  dwelt  there  might  in  the  later  tradition  have  been 
thought  of  as  having  sojourned  in  Egypt.  Here  from  the 
possible  connection  between  the  Habiri,  whose  dwelling  in 
southern  Judah  is  supposed  to  be  witnessed  in  the  name 
Hebron,  and  in  the  clan  names  of  the  tribe  of  Asher  (see 
above),  has  been  placed  the  early  home  of  the  latter,  whose 
people  are  thought  later  to  have  migrated  to  their  home  north 
of  Carmel.i 

1  Hommel,  Ancient  Heh.  Tradition,  pp.  225  f. 
3 


34  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Likewise  has  the  theory  been  advanced  that  the  entrance 
into  Canaan,  related  in  the  fragments  of  JE  in  the  book  of 
Joshua,  represents  only  that  of  the  tribal  sons  of  Rachel,  or 
properly  the  house  of  Joseph  which,  under  the  leadership  of 
Joshua,  conquered  the  southern  part  of  Mt,  Ephraim.  This 
event,  it  is  said,  was  later  amplified  in  tradition  to  represent 
a  movement  of  all  Israel  and  the  conquest  of  the  entire 
land.  The  Leah  tribes  are  held  to  have  entered  earlier 
and  to  have  been  among  the  Habiri  of  the  Amarna  tablets.^ 
A  possible  connection  between  the  Habiri  and  clans  of  the 
tribe  of  Asher  has  already  been  mentioned.  A  further  con- 
nection has  been  claimed  by  identifying  the  Labaya,  whose 
sons  allied  themselves  with  the  Habiri,  with  Levi  (the  con- 
sonants of  the  two  words  having  a  similar  sound).  The  name 
Hebron  as  mentioned  above,  (having  the  same  root  as  Habiri 
"IDH),  is  supposed  also  to  have  originated  from  these  invaders, 
and  its  capture  by  them  has  been  pointed  out  by  identifying 
a  city,  Rubuta,  which  they  took,  with  Kiriath-arba,  the 
ancient  name  of  the  city  Hebron.  Hebron,  as  already  men- 
tioned, is  also  given  as  a  clan  of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  From  all 
of  these  coincidences,  since  the  words  'Ibri  (nD^?)  "Hebrew  " 
and  Habiri  (^2(1)  are  quite  similar,  some  connection  between 
the  entrance  of  the  Leah-tribes  and  the  Habiri  into  Canaan 
seems  plausible.  The  great  objection  to  any  identification 
of  the  Habiri  with  Israel  has  usually  been  that  the  Habiri 
entered  Canaan  from  the  northeast  while  the  tribes  of  Israel 
came  from  the  southeast.  This,  however,  is  removed  when 
we  find  a  double  entrance  of  Israel ;  and  that  of  the  Habiri 
might  also  be  regarded  as  hidden  in  the  story  of  the  ear- 
lier emigration  of  the  family  of  Jacob  from  the  northeast. 
Steuernagel,  however,  regards  Jacob-Israel  as  originally  the 
father  of  only  the  Rachel  tribes.  Leah  and  her  sons,  then, 
would  primarily  have  come  into  the  family  of  Jacob  only  by 
adoption.  A  reminiscence  of  this  may  be  seen  in  the  story 
of  Jacob's  love  first  for  Rachel  and  his  service  for  her,  and 
then  his  later  union  with  Leah;  but  since  the  Leah  tribes 
1  Steuernagel,  Ilandkomm.  zum  Alt  Test.  Joshua,  Einl.,  s.  150. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  35 

were  historically  earlier  in  Canaan  than  the  Rachel-tribes,  in 
the  patriarchal  story,  the  marriage  with  Leah  and  the  births 
of  her  sons  were  placed  first,  although  the  love  and  preference 
for  Rachel  came  earlier.  The  song  of  Deborah  from  its  non- 
mention  of  the  three  Leah  tribes,  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Levi,  is 
thought  to  confirm  also  this  theory. 

Under  this  view  Moses  would  be  regarded  as  originally  a 
member  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph,  and  whatever  history  is  in  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  the  exodus,  the  stay  at  Sinai  and  Kadesh- 
barnea,  would  be  primarily  also  an  experience  of  this  tribe 
only.  Yahwfe  would  also  have  been  first  of  all  its  tribal 
god.  One  would  think,  then,  of  the  worship  of  Yahwfe  as 
having  been  introduced  in  all  Israel  especially  through  the 
statecraft  of  David,  who  perhaps  paid  marked  homage  to  the 
god  of  Northern  Israel,  to  weld  them  to  his  house.  This  may 
have  been  the  course  of  history,  and  is  favored  by  the  fact 
that  the  early  sanctuary  of  Yahwfe  was  at  Shiloh  within 
the  bounds  of  Ephraim,  and  that  his  worship  was  the  bond 
uniting  the  tribes  which  fought  under  Barak  and  Deborah. 
It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  this  reconstruction  as  a 
whole  will  gain  general  consent.  The  religious  bond  between 
the  Rachel  and  Leah  tribes  seems  to  have  been  far  earlier  than 
David's  time,  and  the  identification  of  the  Habiri  so  closely 
with  Israel  is  still  very  questionable,  although  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  there  is  no  connection  between  them. 

Whether  Hebron  is  to  be  associated  in  any  way  with  the 
Habiri  or  not,  its  capture  by  Caleb  probably  represents  a 
movement  from  the  south  northward  and  not  the  reverse.  An 
indication  of  this  lies  clearly  in  the  story  of  Caleb's  proposal 
at  once  to  enter  the  land  (Num.  13 :  30).  The  bringing  of 
Caleb  in  by  way  of  the  crossing  at  Jericho  seems  a  part  of  the 
unifying  process  of  ancient  tradition.  The  general  Hebrew 
tradition,  however,  as  a  whole  may  be  accepted,  that  tribes 
came  out  of  Egypt,  sojourned  and  consolidated  as  worship- 
pers of  Yahwfe  in  the  pasture  lands  south  of  Judah,  and  then 
gained  their  territory  east  of  the  Jordan.  A  motive  for  this 
last  act  has  been  seen  in  the  encroachments  of  the  Canaanitish 


36  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Amorites  upon  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  driving  these 
people  southward,  according  to  the  statement : 

"  Fire  is  gone  out  of  Heshbon, 
A  flame  from  the  city  of  Sihon  : 
It  hath  devoured  Ar  of  Moab  ! 
"Woe  to  thee,  Moab! 
Thou  art  uudoue,  0  people  of  Chemosh."    (Num.  21:  28  f.) 

The  children  of  Israel,  then,  are  thought  to  have  come 
forward  to  assist  their  kinsfolk,  and  to  have  defeated  Sihon, 
and  thus  to  have  made  a  home  for  themselves  east  of  the 
Jordan,  whence  they  crossed  to  western  Palestine,  the  first 
attempt  having  been  made  by  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Levi.'^ 
The  last  two  of  these  tribes,  if  not  the  three,  suffered  a  de- 
feat at  Shechem,  and  they  turned  southward  and  there  dwelt 
quite  by  themselves.  (See  page  19.)  The  second  attempt 
whose  tradition  underlies  the  story  of  the  book  of  Joshua, 
was  made  by  the  other  tribes,  especially  Joseph,  Issachar,  and 
Zebulun,  and  was  more  successful.  Mount  Ephraim  was 
gained  and  a  good  portion  of  northern  Palestine,  although  the 
cities  were  left  largely  in  the  possession  of  the  Canaanites. 
This  view  2  has  strong  support  in  Judges  1  taken  with  Gene- 
sis 34  and  38.  The  final  conquest  of  the  cities,  or  rather  their 
absorption,  generally  by  peaceable  means,  probably  did  not 
take  place  until  the  time  of  David,  when  the  tribal  life  of 
Israel  ceased  and  the  national  began. 

It  has  also  been  thought  that  the  settlement  of  the  tribes  of 
Israel  west  of  the  Jordan  arose,  not  from  forcible  conquest,  but 
by  a  peaceable  immigration  due  to  the  natural  increase  of  pop- 
ulation in  the  transformation  of  the  people  east  of  the  Jordan 
from  nomadic  herdmen  into  settled  agriculturists.  Much  cer- 
tainly can  be  said  in  favor  of  such  a  theory.  The  patriarchal 
stories,  as  a  whole,  reflect  an  ancient  friendly  intercourse  be- 
tween Israel  and  the  Canaanites.     The   deed   of   Levi   and 

1  Cf.,  for  Judah  and  Simeon,  Judges  1:1,  where  "after  the  death  of  Joshua," 
is  a  late  gloss. 

2  Essentially  that  of  Wellhausen,  Prolej.  to  the  Uist.  of  Israel,  p.  431  f. 


THE   TRIBES  OF  ISRAEL  37 

Simeon  at  Shechem  is  given  as  an  exceptional  one  of  treach- 
ery. The  ancient  population  of  the  land  became  certainly,  in 
a  large  degree,  absorbed  by  the  Israelites  in  a  friendly  way. 
Their  sanctuaries  became  Israel's,  and  no  hostile,  bitter,  vin- 
dictive feeling  as  a  whole  seems  to  have  been  cherished  be- 
tween them.  The  later  story  of  the  forcible  entrance  under 
Joshua  might  have  grown  from  the  religious  motive  of  mag- 
nifying Yahw^'s  assistance  of  the  people  in  the  past  and  of 
sharpening  the  distinction  between  Israel  and  other  people, 
which  comes  out  so  vividly  in  tlie  spirit  of  the  later  Judaism. 
The  story  of  the  crossing  at  Jericho  with  the  destruction  of 
the  city,  it  is  argued,  is  also  untrue  because  Eglon,  king  of 
Moab,  is  represented  as  subsequently  living  there  (Judg. 
3:  13). 

To  this  theory  (that  of  Stade)  it  has  well  been  forcibly 
said  in  reply  that  all  Israel's  traditions  are  contrary  to  the 
notion  that  her  possession  of  Palestine  was  occasioned  by 
such  an  unconscious  drift  of  the  population  with  so  little  a 
sense  of  national  unity  and  of  the  leadership  of  Yahwfe.^ 
And  in  respect  to  the  existence  of  Jericho  during  the  Moab- 
ite  rule  of  Eglon,  it  is  doubtful  whether  that  city  fits  into  the 
story  of  Ehud,  and  hence  may  be  in  the  text  through  a  mis- 
take. There  does,  however,  remain  in  favor  of  the  peaceable 
occupation  of  a  part  at  least  of  the  land,  the  fact  ^  that  no 
tradition  has  come  of  the  conquest  of  the  hill  country  of 
Ephraim,  and  that  there  is  a  tradition  of  a  peaceable  purchase 
there  (Gen.  33 :  19),  as  well  as  a  possession  by  force  of  arms 
(Gen.  48 :  22). 

1  G.  A.  Smith,  Hist.  Geog.,  p.  559  fE. 

2  Noticed  by  G.  A.  Smith,  article,  "  Joshua,"  Hastings  DB. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW 

CHARLES  FOSTER  KENT,  PH.D., 
WooLSEY  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature, 


ANJK^ 

FRANK  KNIGHT   SANDERS,  PH.D.,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Biblical  History  and  Archeology. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW 


ISRAEL'S  ORIGINAL  HERITAGE  OF  CUSTOMS  AND  LAWS 

In  considering  the  origin  of  Israel's  laws,  the  fact  is  often 
overlooked  that  the  Hebrews  were  among  the  youngest  of  the 
Semitic  peoples  to  acquire  and  maintain  a  well-defined  posi- 
tion in  western  Asia.  For  at  least  twenty  centuries  before 
the  age  of  Israel's  great  organizer,  Moses,  southwestern  Asia, 
as  a  result  of  conquest  and  commercial  intercourse,  had  been 
permeated  with  the  customs  and  culture  of  Babylonia.  For 
several  centuries  before  the  Hebrew  tribes  were  united  into 
a  nation  the  dominating  influence  in  Palestine  and  the  Sina- 
itic  peninsula  was  Egyptian.  Whatever  and  wherever  may 
have  been  the  origin  of  the  Hebrews,  their  ancestors  could 
not  have  failed  to  be  more  or  less  influenced  by  these  civi- 
lizations, from  which  proceeded  virtually  all  of  the  impulses 
making  for  culture  in  western  Asia  prior  to  1000  b.  c.  If  in 
the  earliest  stages  of  Hebrew  history  the  people  were  but 
slightly  affected  by  the  higher  culture  of  their  powerful 
neighbor  nations,  their  descendants  were  all  the  more  sus- 
ceptible to  its  influences  when  brought  into  close  contact 
with  it.  That  they  yielded  in  a  marked  degree  to  these  in- 
fluences is  the  testimony  of  Hebrew  history  and  institutions. 

This  fact  of  the  inheritance  of  important  laws  and  customs 
on  the  part  of  the  Hebrews  is  well  illustrated  in  the  domain 
of  civil  law.  The  law  of  revenge,  expressed  tersely  as  "  life 
for  life,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for 
foot,  burning  for  burning,  wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe'* 


42  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

(Exod.  21 :  24,  25),  was  already  old  when  the  Hebrew  nation 
was  born.  Even  the  right  of  altar  asylum  (cf.  1  Kgs.  1:50; 
2 :  28,  29),  which  was  intended  to  correct  certain  of  the  abuses 
of  the  firmly  established  institution  of  blood  revenge,  had 
been  long  in  force.  Similarly  much  of  the  Hebrew  legisla- 
tion in  regard  to  marriage  and  divorce,  inheritance  within 
the  tribe  or  clan  and  the  treatment  of  slaves  must  have 
been  recognized  as  binding  —  if  it  were  not  in  some  sort  of 
permanent  form  —  long  before  the  beginnings  of  Hebrew  his- 
tory proper.  Striking  analogies  of  undoubted  antiquity  may 
readily  be  cited  from  Babylonian  or  Egyptian  literature.  In 
regard  to  the  proper  treatment  of  a  slave,  for  example,  it  is 
enacted  in  a  very  old  Babylonian  code,  the  origin  of  which  is 
attributed  to  the  yet  more  ancient  Sumerian  period,  that  "  if 
a  man  hires  a  servant  and  kills,  wounds,  beats,  or  ill-uses 
him  or  makes  him  ill,  he  must  with  his  own  hand  measure 
out  for  him  each  day  half  a  measure  of  grain  "  ^  (cf.  Exod. 
21:26,  27). 

Even  a  larger  proportion  of  Israel's  ceremonial  legislation 
must  be  regarded  as  an  inheritance  from  the  centuries  which 
antedate  the  organization  of  the  nation.  The  prophetic  nar- 
rators of  the  beginnings  of  Hebrew  history,  whose  contribu- 
tions form  the  oldest  portions  of  the  Hexateuch,  clearly 
state  that  the  institution  of  sacrifice,  for  example,  was  rec- 
ognized and  maintained  long  before  the  inception  of  the 
national  life.  Cain  and  Abel  present  their  offerings  to  Yah- 
w^;  Noah,  on  emerging  from  the  ark,  "builded  an  altar 
unto  Yahwe;  and  took  of  every  clean  beast  and  of  every 
clean  fowl  and  offered  burnt  offerings  on  the  altar  "  (Gen. 
8 :  20).  The  patriarchs  built  many  altars  and  called  upon  the 
name  of  God.  The  frequently  repeated  law  against  eating 
the  blood  of  slain  animals  (Deut.  12:16,  23-25;  15:23: 
Levit.  17: 10-14;  19:  26)  was,  according  to  the  priestly  author 
of  Genesis  9:4,  first  revealed  to  Noah.  The  important  dis- 
tinction between  clean  and  unclean  animals  is  regarded  by 
the  prophetic  writer  of  Genesis  7 :  2  as  antedating  the  flood. 

1  Quoted  by  Sayce,  Babylonians  and  Assyrians:  Life  and  Customs,  p.  196. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  43 

This  conviction  of  Israel's  historians  that  many  of  their  reli- 
gious rites  and  the  laws  which  regulated  them  were  not 
peculiar  to  their  race  but  an  inheritance  from  ages  more  or 
less  remote  is  confirmed  beyond  question  by  contemporary 
and  earlier  Semitic  literature.  Old  Babylonia,  Egypt,  and 
Phoenicia  had  highly  developed  rituals  and  hierarchies,  simi- 
lar in  many  respects  to  that  in  use  by  the  Hebrews.  The 
Babylonians  and  Egyptians  had  their  sacred  arks,i  in  which 
the  gods  were  borne  in  procession  at  the  sacred  festivals. 
The  rite  of  circumcision,  so  significant  to  the  Hebrew  people, 
was  practised  by  many  peoples  of  antiquity.  The  consecra- 
tion to  God  and  prompt  sacrifice  of  the  first-born  of  domestic 
animals  was  a  very  ancient  Semitic  custom,  regularly  prac- 
tised by  the  Arabs.^  The  agricultural  thanksgiving  days 
and  festivals  which  the  Hebrews  observed  as  the  funda- 
mental ritual  requirement  of  Yahw^  —  of  unleavened  bread, 
first-fruits  and  ingathering  (Exod.  23: 14-19  ;  34:18,  22,  23) 
—  were  in  all  probability  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites  when 
the  Hebrews  made  the  important  transition  from  nomadic  to 
agricultural  life.^  It  is  difiicult,  indeed,  to  find  an  important 
ceremonial  among  Israel's  religious  usages  which  does  not 
have  a  parallel,  more  or  less  close,  among  the  recognized 
institutions  of  other  Semitic  peoples. 

A  full  appreciation  of  how  great  and  important  was  Israel's 
legal  heritage  from  the  past  is  absolutely  essential  to  an 
understanding  of  the  growth  of  its  law  as  a  whole  and  of 
the  real  nature  of  that  growth.  Far  from  being  a  spontane- 
ous and  untrammeled  development,  and  therefore  straightfor- 
ward and  well  defined,  it  was  in  reality  the  result  of  a  process 
of  selection,  modification  and  elimination,  affected  by  many 
and  varied  influences.  Many  statements  preserved  in  the 
Old  Testament  clearly  indicate  that  Israel's  enlightened 
teachers  also  recognized  that  their  law  and  customs  were  a 
gradual   and   progressive  growth.      The   prophet   Jeremiah 

*  For  a  convenient  summary  of  data,  see  Encyc.  Bib.,  i.  306-7. 

2  W.  Robertson  Smith,  Religion  of  Semites,  appendix. 

'  See  Budde's  interesting  discussion  in  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Exile,  p.  39  ff. 


44  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ironically  declares  in  Yahw^'s  name :  "  Add  your  burnt  offer- 
ings unto  your  sacrifices  and  eat  ye  flesh.  For  I  spake  not 
unto  your  fathers  and  gave  them  no  command  in  the  day  that 
I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  concerning  burnt 
offerings  and  sacrifices;  but  this  thing  I  commanded  them, 
saying,  Hearken  unto  my  voice  "  (7 :  21-23*).  An  earlier 
prophet,  Amos,  declares  explicitly  that  in  the  old  days  in 
the  wilderness,  when  Yahwe  showed  his  love  for  Israel,  no 
sacrifices  were  offered  to  him,  or,  at  least,  were  of  small 
moment  (Amos  5 :  25).  Jeremiah  even  recognizes  that  agen- 
cies exist  which  are  liable  to  alter  the  law  to  serve  their  own 
base  purposes  (8 :  8). 

Hebrew  legislation  was  therefore  a  growth,  and  fortunately 
one  that  can  be  traced.  By  the  study  of  analogies  among  other 
ancient  Semitic  peoples  and  by  means  of  certain  suggestions 
contained  in  the  laws  of  the  Old  Testament  themselves,  it  is 
possible,  conjecturally  at  least,  to  determine  the  influences  and 
methods  whereby  under  divine  Providence  the  remarkable 
legal  system  of  the  Hebrews  came  into  being.  In  some  in- 
stances the  Old  Testament  has  preserved  the  complete  biog- 
raphy of  a  given  law.  In  other  cases  the  historical  records 
of  the  nation  present  the  situation  or  quote  the  precedent  out 
of  which  the  law  grew.  A  comparison  of  kindred  laws  in  the 
successive  codes  not  infrequently  suggests  the  genesis  of  the 
later  enactments. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  45 


II 

INFLUENCES  WHICH  LED  TO  THE  REVISION  AND 
EXPANSION  OF  THE  LAW 

1.    The  Settlement  of  the  Hebrews  in  Canaan 

The  first  powerful  influence  ajffecting  the  original  body  of 
customs  and  laws  recognized  by  the  Hebrew  tribes  was  the 
transition  from  a  career  essentially  nomadic  in  which  the 
clan  was  the  social  and  political  unit,  to  the  settled,  agricul- 
tural, community  life  of  Canaan.  The  new  occupations  and 
environment  could  not  but  give  rise  to  a  host  of  judicial 
questions  not  provided  for  by  the  simple  but  persistent  cus- 
toms of  a  nomadic  people.  The  laws,  for  example,  which 
relate  to  the  possession  and  transfer  of  property  in  land 
(Deut.  19:14;  Levit.  25),  fixing  a  compensation  for  injury 
done  to  real  property  (Exod.  22 :  5,  6)  and  containing  the  in- 
junction to  let  the  land  lie  fallow  during  the  seventh  year 
(Exod.  23:10-12),  had  no  relation  to  the  needs  of  a  no- 
madic community  and  must  have  been  developed  to  meet 
the  changed  needs  of  the  Hebrews.  The  same  transition 
marked  a  great  increase  in  the  ceremonial  laws.  As  wan- 
derers in  the  trackless  desert  they  had  a  patriarchal  organiz- 
ation and  a  simple  religious  system,  under  which  but  few 
places  ranked  as  sanctuaries  where  God  had  made  his  pres- 
ence known.  When  they  conquered  Canaan  they  took  posses- 
sion of  many  Canaanitish  holy  places  which  became  to  them 
hallowed  by  Yahwfe's  presence  and  were  made  the  centres 
of  their  more  complex  religious  life.  About  these  sacred 
places  grew  up  a  local  priesthood. and  a  detailed  ritual,  and, 
in  time,  a  body  of  customs  and  regulations  very  different 


46  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

from  the  simple  usages  observed  in  connection  with  the  ark 
which  had  proved  adequate  during  the  earlier  wilderness  life. 
In  its  way  the  transition  was  almost  a  revolution. 

2.    The  Babylonian  Exile 

The  Babylonian  exile  and  the  absolutely  altered  conditions 
which  grew  out  of  it  also  proved  active  forces  in  leading  to 
the  further  revision  and  expansion  of  the  law.  The  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  broke  the  continuity  of 
traditional  usage;  new  needs  suggested  new  regulations. 
Deprived  of  its  independence  and  unable  to  participate  in 
affairs  of  state,  the  attention  and  energy  of  the  race  were 
devoted  to  questions  of  religion  and  ritual.  The  leisure  of 
the  exile  gave  ample  opportunity  for  the  study  and  further 
development  of  the  law ;  while  the  bitter  experience  of  the 
nation  seemed  to  suggest  the  desirability  of  an  emphasis  upon 
ritual  as  a  means  of  religious  progress.  Ezekiel  with  his 
comprehensive  and  somewhat  revolutionary  programme  for  the 
restored  Jewish  state  (Ezek.  40  to  48)  stands  as  a  represen- 
tative of  a  broad  movement  which  was  supported  and  fos- 
tered by  many  influential  minds  and  led  to  the  probable 
formulation  of  an  important  proportion  of  the  laws  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

3.    Contact  with  Other  Peoples  and  Fusion  with  the 
Canaanites 

Of  Ahaz,  King  of  Judah,  it  is  recorded  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter  of  Second  Kings  that  while  in  Damascus  he  saw 
an  altar  whose  style  attracted  him.  Securing  a  pattern,  he 
caused  one  like  it  to  be  erected  in  the  place  of  the  brazen 
altar  which  hitherto  had  stood  in  front  of  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem.  In  order  to  conform  to  Assyrian  fashions  he  also 
made  many  sweeping  innovations  in  the  order  of  the  sacrifi- 
cial service  and  in  the  equipment  of  the  temple.  If  such 
revolutionizing  changes  as  these  could  be  made  without 
apparent  protest  in  a  late  period  when  usages  had  become 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  47 

firmly  established,  it  is  easy  to  appreciate  how  powerfully 
the  Hebrews  must  have  been  influenced  in  their  earlier  form- 
ative period  by  the  relatively  much  higher  civilization  with 
which  they  came  into  intimate  contact.  At  first  the  Canaan- 
ite  and  then  the  kindred  Phoenician  influence  was  closest  and 
most  potent.  From  the  Canaanites  the  Hebrews,  as  a  nation 
at  least,  learned  the  art  of  cultivating  the  soil  and  with  that 
art  undoubtedly  received  many  of  the  customs  which  are 
reflected  in  the  laws  found  in  the  primitive  codes  of  Exodus, 
whose  background  is  clearly  the  life  of  agriculturists. 

Adopting  as  they  did  the  sacred  places  and  sanctuaries  of 
the  Canaanites  and  freely  intermarrying  with  them,  it  was 
inevitable  that  they  should  also  take  from  them  many  of 
their  ceremonial  laws  and  customs.  At  Shechem  during  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  both  peoples  worshipped  together  for 
a  time  at  a  common  shrine  which  was  called  the  temple  of 
Baal  of  the  covenant  (Judges  9:  4).  After  the  victory  under 
Deborah  and  Barak,  when  the  Hebrews  became  masters  of 
the  land,  Canaanitish  priests  may  have  continued  to  minister 
at  the  sanctuaries  which  henceforth  were  reconsecrated  to 
Yahwe.  The  record,  at  least,  has  been  preserved  that  the 
GiyTeonites  were  made  "  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water 
for  the  house  of  Yahwe  "  (Josh.  9 :  23).  The  whole  system 
of  the  Israelitish  priesthood  seems  to  have  been  developed 
almost  entirely  after  the  Hebrews  entered  Canaan  and  not 
improbably  as  the  result  of  contact  with  a  civilization  which, 
though  politically  weak,  was  vastly  in  advance  of  the  experi- 
ence of  the  Hebrews  in  organization  and  culture. 

In  his  attack  upon  hypocritical  formalism  Amos  exclaims: 
"  Did  you  bring  unto  me  sacrifices  and  offerings  in  the  wil- 
derness for  forty  years?"  (5:25).  The  answer  obviously 
implied  is,  "No."  The  oldest  and  most  authentic  Hebrew 
records  make  no  reference  to  the  existence  of  priests  in  the 
pre-Canaanitic  period  and  strongly  imply  that  there  was  no 
such  caste  as  appears  in  later  times  and  writings.  Accord- 
ing to  the  early  passage  in  Exodus  33 :  7-11  Moses  himself 
consulted   Yahwe  at  the  tent  of  meeting  and  Joshua  took 


48  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

charge  of  it.  The  account  of  the  priesthood  of  Aaron  and 
his  family  is  found  in  the  latest  stratum  of  priestly  records 
and  evidently  represents  the  projection  of  late  institutions 
and  laws  into  the  early  period  (cf.  p.  82). 

Later  their  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  conquerors  brought 
to  the  Israelites  ideas  and  religious  customs  which  they 
adapted  and  in  time  legalized.  The  elaborate  temple  and 
ritual  of  Babylonia  especially  impressed  the  minds  of  the 
Jewish  exiles  who  framed  the  laws  which  regulated  the 
second  temple.  In  many  of  his  strange  visions  the  priest- 
prophet  Ezekiel  shows  that  his  mind  has  been  deeply  affected 
by  the  glory  and  glitter  of  Babylon.  Cast,  as  were  the 
Hebrews,  into  the  great  currents  of  ancient  life,  they  could 
not  remain  stationary ;  and  as  they  reacted  or  responded  to 
the  powerful  influences  which  came  from  without,  their  cus- 
toms and  laws  were  gradually  transformed  and  expanded. 

4.    Changed  Political  and  Social  Conditions 

If  Israel's  laws  were  moulded  by  forces  from  without,  even 
more  powerful  were  the  transforming  influences  which  pro- 
ceeded from  within  the  nation.  After  the  settlement  in 
Canaan,  city  and  national  organization  gradually  took  the 
place  of  that  of  the  clan.  For  some  time  the  old  habit  of 
delegating  the  functions  of  community  government  to  a 
council  of  elders  or  heads  of  families  persisted  (Judges  8: 14; 
11 :  5),  but  the  superior  advantages  of  an  organization  which 
really  unified  the  people  led  in  time  to  the  kingship,^  Hence 
new  laws,  like  those  defining  the  constitutional  limitations  of 
the  king  (Deut.  17 ;  16-20)  or  establishing  a  supreme  court  of 
appeal  (Ex.  22:  8;  Deut.  17:  8-11;  19: 16-19;  21: 1-7)  were 
required  and  provided.  Growing  distinctions  between  classes 
made  necessary  definite  enactments  protecting  the  rights  of 
the  poor  and  resident  aliens  (Exod.  22:  21-24;  Deut.  24: 19- 
22).     After  the  sixth  century  B.  c,  when  the  kingship  was 

1  Not,  however,  to  the  abolition  of  the  influence  of  the  "  elders."  See  1  Kgs. 
21:  8,  11;  Ezra  10:8;  laa.  3:14;  9:15. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  49 

no  more  and  the  civil  and  religious  authority  became  finally 
centralized  in  the  heads  of  the  hierarchy,  other  new  and  revo- 
lutionizing regulations  had  to  be  enacted  which  were  adapted 
to  the  new  order  of  things. 

6.    New  Religious  Institutions 

When  changed  religious  ideas  and  institutions  began  to 
prevail  in  Israel  the  laws  based  upon  the  old  order  proved 
insufficient  and  were  either  set  aside  or  further  expanded. 
Thus  the  centralization  of  religious  worship  in  Jerusalem 
consummated  in  the  days  of  Josiah  not  only  made  illegal  the 
offering  of  sacrifices  at  the  altars  found  at  the  high  places 
scattered  throughout  the  whole  land,  but  also  made  it  neces- 
sary by  means  of  the  cities  of  refuge  to  provide  a  substitute 
for  the  right  of  altar  asylum  which  had  previously  served  to 
correct  certain  evils  incidental  to  the  institution  of  blood- 
revenge. ^  Later  still,  when  the  offering  of  sacrifice  by  the 
private  individual  was  made  illegal  in  the  interests  of  purity 
and  propriety,  a  large  increase  in  the  number  of  officiating 
priests  was  called  for  and  laws  in  minute  detail  to  define 
their  qualifications  and  duties. 

6.    The  Development  of  Higher  Ethical  Standards 

As  in  the  case  of  all  progressive  races,  the  moral  standards 
of  the  Hebrews  were  constantly  being  raised  and,  as  a  result, 
practices  countenanced  in  one  age  were  condemned  by  that 
which  succeeded.  Their  literature  contains  many  examples 
of  the  ancient  custom  of  visiting  upon  the  entire  family  or 
tribe  punishment  for  the  sin  of  a  single  offender.  The  chil- 
dren of  Benjamin  (Judges  19-21)  are  held  responsible  for  the 
outrage  committed  at  Gibeah.  The  sons  of  Rizpah  and  Saul 
and  five  of  his  grandsons  are  taken  by  David  (2  Sam.  21 : 1- 
14)  and  given  up  to  the  Gibeonites  to  be  executed  because 

1  The  context  in  Exod.  21 :  12-14  seems  to  indicate  that  the  refuge  of  v.  13  is 
the  altar  of  v.  14.  The  law  of  Dt.  and  P.  (Dent.  19 : 1-13  ;  Num.  35  : 9-34)  is  a 
reformulation  and  adaptation  of  the  time-honored  ( 1  Kgs.  1:50;  2 :  28)  custom  to 
the  needs  of  a  more  complex  civilization. 

4 


60  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

of  a  wrong  done  by  Saul  to  the  Gibeonites  long  before,  with 
which  they  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do.  It  was  not  injuri- 
ous to  the  moral  sense  of  primitive  Israel  to  "devote"  a 
whole  community  and  its  possessions  (1  Sam.  15:18).  But 
Deuteronomy  24 :  16  presents  a  law  which  distinctly  enacts 
that  none  but  the  culprit  shall  be  punished  for  his  crime  and 
that  the  earlier  usage  shall  fall  into  abeyance.  The  later 
laws  regarding  slavery  aim,  in  the  main,  to  alleviate  the 
hardships  of  their  lot  under  the  earlier  regulations  and  are 
clearly  the  expression  of  a  developing  ethical  consciousness. 

7.    The  Teaching  of  the  Prophets  and  Wise  Men 

That  which  distinguished  the  Hebrews  from  other  peoples 
of  antiquity  was  not  their  political  institutions  nor  their 
ritual,  but  the  presence  and  work  of  the  true  prophets  within 
their  midst.  To  the  quiet  but  strong  influence  of  these  real 
men  of  God  can  be  traced  most  that  is  unique  and  charac- 
teristic in  Israelitish  life  and  law.  They  represented  the 
enlightened  conscience  of  the  race,  enunciating  higher  prin- 
ciples of  action  and  pointing  out  in  what  respects  current 
practices  were  defective.  Because  of  their  zeal  for  absolute 
righteousness  they  were  not  only  champions  of  that  which 
was  good  in  the  life  and  laws  of  their  nation,  but  also  un- 
sparing critics  of  that  which  was  imperfect.  Unlike  most  of 
their  contemporaries,  they  were  unfettered  by  the  bonds  of 
tradition.  Precedent  had  no  authority  over  them,  if  it  did 
not  accord  with  their  conceptions  of  right.  Personal  inter- 
ests were  completely  forgotten  in  their  zeal  to  proclaim  their 
message.  Thus  they  stood  the  embodiment  and  expression 
of  higher  ideals.  They  were  the  pioneers  proclaiming,  as 
Yahwe's  spokesmen,  new  and  transforming  principles.  The 
wise  men,  who  as  teachers  of  the  individual  came  into  closer 
touch  with  the  people,  applied  to  the  everyday  problems  of 
life  the  same  prophetic  truths. 

The  prophets  and  the  wise  men  each  had  their  torah  ^  as 

1  That  is,  a  body  of  authoritative  teachings. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  51 

well  as  the  priests,  and  claimed  for  it  the  same  authority. 
"  If  you  will  not  hearken  to  me  and  walk  in  my  law  (torah) 
which  I  have  set  before  you,  to  hearken  to  the  words  of  my 
servants  the  prophets,  whom  I  send  unto  you  sparing  no 
effort  .  .  .  then  will  I  make  this  city  a  curse  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth"  (Jer.  26:4-6;  cf.  9:13;  16:11;  Isa. 
1:10).  Deuteronomy  solemnly  enacts,  under  penalty  for 
non-fulfillment,  that  the  people  should  heed  the  message  of 
the  true  prophet  (18:18,  19).  Many  a  wise  man  exhorted 
his  disciple: 

My  son,  forget  not  my  torah  ; 

But  let  thy  heart  keep  my  commandments. 

(Prov.  3:1;  4:2;  6  :  20). 

Even  though  the  people  did  not  at  once  follow  the  exalted 
torah  of  the  prophets  and  wise  men,  their  thought  and  action 
were  gradually  transformed  thereby,  until  that  which  they  at 
first  rejected  as  too  radical  or  heretical,  because  of  the  irre- 
sistible influence  of  matured  public  opinion  and  deliberate 
usage,  and  because  of  its  appeal  to  the  enlightened  con- 
science of  the  nation,  became  embodied  in  the  legal  torah  of 
the  nation  and  became  the  definite  norm  to  which  their  life 
was  more  and  more  conformed. 

8.    77ie  Divine  Influence  in  the  Growth  of  the  Law 

This  general  survey  has  shown  that  the  influences  which 
led  to  the  growth  of  the  laws  of  the  Israelites  are  clearly  dis- 
cernible and  in  most  cases  analogous  to  those  which  produced 
the  legislative  system  of  other  nations.  The  Hebrews,  how- 
ever, in  common  with  most  peoples  of  antiquity,  in  time  at- 
tributed the  origin  of  their  law  directly  and  solely  to  their 
God.  In  like  manner  the  Babylonians  regarded  Ea,  the  god 
of  culture,  as  the  author  of  their  first  law  book  ^nd  a  deity 
who  would  enforce  the  keeping  of  his  laws.  The  same 
tradition  appears  in  the  writings  of  the  late  Chaldean  priest. 
Berosus,  and  is  to  the  effect  that  Cannes  (corresponding  to 
Ea,  the  god  of  the  deep)  emerged  from  the  waters  of  the  Per- 


52  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

sian  Gulf  bringing  the  elements  of  civilization  and  the  code  of 
laws  which  were  in  force  henceforth  in  Babylonia.  Diodorus 
(I.  94,  75)  states  that  the  sacred  books  of  Egyptian  law  had 
been  composed  by  Thoth,  the  god  of  wisdom.  Among  the 
Aryans,  following  the  period  of  natural  law  came  the  Dharma 
period,  or  the  period  of  divine  law.^  All  the  institutions  of 
the  Hindus,  Greeks,  and  Romans  were  colored  by  the  idea  that 
their  oldest  laws  were  given  to  them  directly  by  the  gods. 
The  Hindus  had  their  so-called  code  of  Manu,  who  was  de- 
scribed as  an  emanation  from  the  deity.  In  Plato's  Laws  a 
Kretan  is  made  to  assert  that  Zeus  is  held  to  be  the  author  of 
their  laws,  and  that  their  king  Minos,  as  Homer  says,  went 
every  ninth  year  to  converse  with  his  Olympian  sire  and 
made  laws  in  accordance  with  his  sacred  words.  In  one  in- 
stance the  Hebrews  give  expression  to  this  widespread  belief 
in  the  divine  origin  of  the  law  by  means  of  the  tradition  that 
their  decalogue  was  originally  written  by  the  finger  of  Yahwfe 
(Ex.  31:18;  Deut.  4 :  13).  Elsewhere  Moses  is  regarded  as 
the  divine  amanuensis,  writing  down  as  Yahw^  dictated. 
As  in  the  case  of  all  ancient  peoples,  the  belief  is  old  but  can- 
not be  traced  to  the  very  earliest  period. 

In  a  very  true  sense  the  Israelites  were  right  in  their 
underlying  idea.  Blind  indeed  is  the  historian  who  does 
not  see  the  hand  of  God  shaping  their  institutions  and  laws. 
It  was  not,  however,  by  a  finger  of  flesh  on  tables  of  stone, 
as  the  ancient  Hebrews  naively  thought  in  an  age  when  they 
conceived  of  the  deity  as  a  man,  but  by  the  varied  and  thrill- 
ing experiences  of  their  national  life  and  by  means  of  the 
messages  of  devoted,  courageous  prophets  and  wise  men  that 
Yahwfe  wrote  upon  the  hearts  of  his  people  his  divine  laws. 
It  is  because  of  their  remarkable  history  and  because  of  the 
inspired  teachers  in  their  midst  that,  until  the  canon  of  the 
written  law  was  closed,  the  Israelites  —  unlike  many  other 
peoples  —  experienced  no  prolonged  period  of  mental  and 
religious  stagnation.  The  laws  of  a  progressive  people  were 
necessarily  constantly  developing  and   expanding.     Growth 

1  Botsford,  The  Athenian  Constitution,  25* 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  53 

was  the  evidence  and  result  of  life,  and  the  complexity  and 
frequent  contradictions  in  the  law  were  in  turn  but  the  evi- 
dence and  result  of  growth,  so  that  the  confusing  codes 
preserved  in  the  Pentateuch  are  effective  witnesses  to  the 
remarkable  history  of  the  Hebrews  and  to  the  exalted  divine 
purpose  being  revealed  and  realized  through  them. 


54  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


III 


CONDITIONS  BEFORE  THE  ESTABLISHMENT   OF  THE 
KINGDOM 

Of  law  in  the  sense  of  a  definite  body  of  rules  and  regula- 
tions —  written  or  unwritten  —  applied  indifferently  under 
like  conditions  to  all  members  of  the  community,  there  is 
little  trace  in  Hebrew  history  before  the  establishment  of  the 
monarchy  in  the  days  of  Saul.  As  the  editor  of  the  Book  of 
Judges,  in  speaking  of  the  period,  plainly  declares :  "  In  these 
days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel :  every  man  did  that  which 
was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  The  law  of  might  —  well  illus- 
trated by  the  story  of  the  stealing  of  the  priest  and  ephod  of 
Micah  the  Ephraimite  by  the  Danites  (Judges  18),  and  the 
rape  of  the  daughters  of  Shiloh  by  the  Benjaminites  at  the 
vintage  feast  (Judg.  21 :  16-23)  —  was  apparently  the  one 
oftenest  observed.  This  of  course  is  but  evidence  of  the 
absence  of  well  defined  regulations.  In  certain  respects  it 
corresponded  to  the  Rta  period  (or  period  of  natural  law)  in 
primitive  Aryan  history.  Most  of  the  commands  which  we 
find  in  the  decalogue  of  Exodus  20  were  constantly  disre- 
garded by  the  representative  heroes  of  the  age.  The  absence 
of  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  early  historians  to  excuse 
or  condemn  these  acts  is  significant  evidence  that  this  deca- 
logue, which  embodies  the  essence  of  exalted  prophetic  teach- 
ings, was  unknown  to  them.  Thus  Ehud's  treacherous 
murder  of  Eglon  king  of  Moab  is  implicitly  commended 
(Judg.  3:16-23).  Gideon's  slaughter  of  the  Hebrews  of 
Penuel  is  recorded  without  comment  (Judg.  8:17).  Al- 
though  condemned   by   the   later   editor,    his   setting   up   a 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  55 

molten  image  at  his  capital  Ophrah  and  the  popular  practice 
of  worshipping  at  the  temple  of  Baal-berith  (Judg.  8 :  26,  27 ; 
9;  6)  seem  to  have  been  regarded  as  permissible  by  the  con- 
temporaries of  Gideon.  The  popular  hero  Samson  repeatedly 
transgressed  the  laws  guarding  social  morality  (Judg.  16), 
yet,  according  to  the  ancient  narrative,  the  spirit  of  Yahwfe, 
his  God,  continued  to  move  him.  The  laws  later  regulating 
the  temple  and  priesthood  were  still  in  the  germ.  Micah  the 
Ephraimite  with  the  eleven  hundred  pieces  of  silver,  which 
were  under  a  curse  because  he  had  formerly  stolen  them  from 
his  mother,  established  a  private  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  with 
a  molten  image  as  its  central  object  of  worship.  At  first  one 
of  his  sons  was  appointed  its  priest,  but  later  when  a  wan- 
dering Levite  appeared,  he  was  hired  to  care  for  the  shrine 
(Judg.  17). 

The  period,  however,  was  not  one  of  complete  lawlessness. 
Certain  obligations  were  recognized  as  binding  upon  every 
member  of  the  community,  as  is  shown  by  the  uprising  of 
the  Hebrew  tribes  to  punish  an  act  of  gross  immorality  com- 
mitted by  the  Benjaminites  (Judg.  19-21).  A  few  customs 
—  chiefly  inherited  from  the  Semitic  past  —  like  those  of 
blood  revenge  (Judg.  8,  18-21)  and  the  obligation  to  fulfil 
a  vow  (Judg.  11 :  29-40)  were  universally  recognized  and  may 
be  said  already  to  be  crystallizing  into  an  unwritten  law. 
That  they  had  not  yet  attained  to  the  authority  of  an  un- 
changeable custom  is  well  illustrated  by  the  incident  recorded 
in  First  Samuel  14 :  24-45 ;  where  the  vow  laid  by  Saul  upon 
his  followers,  and  which  called  for  the  death  of  Jonathan,  was 
set  aside  because  their  moral  sense  revolted  at  the  thousrht  of 

O 

such  manifest  injustice.  Each  tribe  probably  had  its  pecu- 
liar habits  of  doing  certain  things;  but  in  general  law  was 
still  only  in  the  making. 


56  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


IV 

ISRAELITISH  LAW  IN  THE  MAKING 

1.    The  Decisions  of  Judges 

The  derivation  of  the  common  Hebrew  word  for  law, 
torah,  suggests  the  process  of  its  growth.  It  comes  from  a 
root  whose  original  meaning  is  to  throw  or  cast.  In  First 
Samuel  20:  36  it  is  used  of  shooting  arrows  and  in  Joshua  18 :  6 
of  casting  the  lot.  Its  common  meaning,  to  direct  or  point 
out,  seems  to  have  resulted  from  its  frequent  use  to  describe 
the  casting  of  the  sacred  lot  or  arrows  in  determining  and 
pointing  out  the  will  of  the  deity.  ^  Torah  therefore  means 
a  pointing  out,  a  direction,  an  authoritative  decision,  origi- 
nally given  only  after  consulting  the  deity.  It  closely  cor- 
responds in  origin  and  content  to  the  Greek  word  Themis 
which  was  "the  divine  agent,  suggesting  judicial  awards  to 
kings  or  to  gods.  Themistes,  Themises,  the  plural  of  The- 
mis, were  the  awards  themselves,  divinely  dictated  to  the 
judge.  Kings  are  spoken  of  as  if  they  had  a  store  of 
*  Themistes  '  ready  to  hand  for  use ;  but  it  must  be  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  they  were  not  laws  but  judgments  " 
(Maine,  Anc.  Law,  4).  The  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  word 
torah,  therefore,  strongly  suggests  that  the  definite  direc- 
tions or  decisions  rendered  by  authoritative  judges  —  elders 
of  the  tribe,  leaders,  priests,  or  kings  —  who  either  consulted 
the  deity  in  each  case  or  else  were  understood  to  represent 
him,  mark  the  first  stage  in  the  development  of  ancient  law. 
This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  the  meaning  of  the  other 
common  synonym   for  law,   mishpat,   which  was  originally 

1  C£.  Welhausen,  Skizzen,  III.  143  (2d  ed.) ;  Benzinger,  Arch.,  408. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  67 

simply  a  decision  given  in  an  individual  case,  then  later 
regarded  as  a  precedent  for  similar  cases.  Finally  it  was 
employed  to  designate  a  custom  or  ordinance. 

Exodus  18 :  13-27  contains  a  striking  illustration  of  this 
first  stage  of  law-making,  which  is  all  the  more  interesting 
because  it  belongs  to  one  of  the  earliest  strands  of  the  pro- 
phetic history  (E)  and  because  it  is  associated  with  the  name 
of  Moses.  It  introduces  us  to  the  great  leader  seated  to 
judge  the  people  and  surrounded  by  them  from  morning  until 
evening,  eagerly  presenting  their  various  questions.  In 
reply  to  his  father-in-law's  inquiry  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
scene,  Moses  explains :  It  is  "  because  the  people  come  unto 
me ;  and  I  judge  between  a  man  and  his  neighbor  and  I  make 
them  know  the  statutes  of  God  and  his  directions  (toroth).'^ 
Evidently  each  case  was  treated  independently  and  a  decision 
rendered  by  Moses  which  was  recognized  as  expressing  the 
divine  will.  Naturally  as  the  same  cases  repeated  themselves 
he  applied  the  same  principles;  as  yet,  however,  the  people 
were  not  so  well  acquainted  with  them  but  that  they  must 
refer  each  case  to  the  leader.  As  the  same  decisions  were 
repeatedly  rendered  under  similar  conditions  they  constituted 
precedents  which  became  the  basis  of  custom  and  then  of  law. 
His  father-in-law,  recognizing  that  Moses'  time  and  energy 
were  being  exhausted  by  the  petty  judicial  duties,  wisely 
advised  him  to  associate  with  himself  able,  impartial  men, 
familiar  with  the  principles  of  justice  which  he  had  already 
established  by  his  decisions,  and  to  allow  them  to  judge  very 
small  matters.  "Hard  cases, "  that  is,  cases  presenting  new 
problems  and  involving  new  principles,  were  still  to  be  re- 
ferred to  Moses.  Jethro's  words  to  Moses  in  this  connection 
vividly  present  both  the  theory  and  fact  in  regard  to  the 
origin  of  primitive  law:  "Be  thou  for  the  people  to  God- 
ward  (i.  e.,  stand  as  the  representative  of  God  before  the 
people),  and  bring  thou  the  causes  unto  God:  and  (thus) 
thou  shalt  teach  them  th6  statutes  and  the  directions  (toroth, 
usually  translated  laws),  and  shalt  show  them  the  way 
wherein  they  must  walk,  and  the  work  which   they  must 


58  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

do."  Those  who  officiated  as  judges  were  at  first  the  nat- 
ural leaders  of  the  people,  the  heads  of  families  or  those 
(Exod.  24:14)  recognized  as  possessing  executive  powers. 
This  is  indicated  by  the  term  "  judge  "  applied  to  the  brave 
champions  of  Israel  raised  up  in  times  of  need  after  Joshua's 
death.  As  the  priesthood  grew  in  numbers  and  importance, 
its  members  frequently  exercised  judicial  functions.  The 
elders  of  each  community  were  recognized  as  being  re- 
sponsible for  punishing  the  crime  of  any  member  of  it 
(1  Kgs.  21:  8-13;  cf.  2  Kgs.  10:  1).  In  process  of  time, 
however,  the  regular  needs  of  the  larger  and  better  organ- 
ized communities  or  cities  gave  rise  to  a  recognized  set 
of  officials,  very  similar  to  the  judges  of  to-day.  The 
Chronicler  (2  Chr.  19 :  5-11)  ascribes  to  Jehoshaphat  the 
appointment  and  encouragement  of  such  incumbents,  and 
curiously  supplements  this  arrangement  by  the  simultaneous 
appointment  in  Jerusalem  of  a  sort  of  court  of  last  resort 
composed  of  Levites,  priests,  and  elders,  with  two  presi- 
dents, one  for  religious,  the  other  for  civil  cases.  The 
latter  provision  seems  more  like  the  well-ordered  usage  of 
post-exilic  times  than  the  rude  methods  of  the  days  of  the 
kingdom.  The  priestly  law  does  not  refer  specifically  to 
the  work  of  judges, ^  and  probably  takes  it  for  granted 
that  the  omnipresent  priest  or  Levite  will  act  in  that 
capacity. 

The  different  steps  in  the  growth  of  primitive  Israelitish 
law  are  now  clear.  When  particular  cases  were  referred  to 
early  judges  they  decided  them  as  their  judgment,  guided 
by  an  endeavor  to  ascertain,  in  the  various  ways  known  to 
them,  the  will  of  the  deity,  dictated.  Decisions  thus  ren- 
dered were  regarded  as  having  divine  authority.  Earlier  de- 
cisions would  naturally  constitute  precedents  which  would 
be  followed  in  recurring  cases.  A  series  of  similar  decisions 
would  in  time  reveal  the  underlying  principle  and  establish 
a  custom ;  later  the  custom  would  be  expressed  in  the  terms 
of  a  law. 

1  Lev.  19  :  15,  35,  36  are  general  in  character. 


THE   GROWTH   OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  59 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  original  term  torah^  direc- 
tion or  decision,  was  retained  in  later  time  as  the  compre- 
hensive designation  of  the  laws  as  a  whole  —  written  and 
unwritten,  civil,  moral  and  ceremonial  —  and  was  even  em- 
ployed by  the  prophets  and  wise  men  to  designate  their  char- 
acteristic teaching. 

Among  the  Greeks  who  were  more  exact  and  did  not 
impose  upon  the  same  word  so  great  a  variety  of  meanings, 
the  different  stages  in  the  growth  of  the  law  are  more  clearly 
distinguished.  The  early  term  ©e^i?  (^Themis,  plural  The- 
mistes^  judgments)  later  became  the  designation  for  the  god 
of  justice.  A  body  of  judgments  merging  or  merged  into  a 
usage  or  custom  were  designated  by  Sikij  ;  while  v6/xo<i,  which 
was  not  known  in  the  primitive  period,  was  employed  to  de- 
scribe the  collective  body  of  rules  regulating  the  life  of  the 
nation  and  individual. 


2.    Moses^  Relation  to  the  Law 

In  the  light  of  these  conclusions  the  nature  of  Moses' 
relation  to  Israelitish  legislation  as  a  whole  becomes  evident. 
In  the  earliest  records  he  is  represented  not  as  a  law-giver, 
but  as  a  prophet,  leader,  and  judge  (Exod.  15 :  22 ;  24 : 1 ; 
Hosea  12: 13;  Exod.  18).  By  virtue  of  his  unique  authority 
and  superior  enlightenment  he  was  called  upon  to  make  many 
important  decisions,  and  thereby  established  by  means  of  these 
precedents  certain  fundamental  principles  which  became  the 
basis  of  the  complex  system  of  legislation  which  was  in  time 
reared  upon  this  substructure.  The  acorn  contains  the  oak. 
In  a  broad  and  very  real  sense  the  entire  system  may  be 
called  Mosaic,  although  Moses  himself  may  possibly  never 
have  written  a  word  or  formulated  one  of  the  laws  which 
have  been  preserved  in  the  Pentateuch  in  the  phraseology 
familiar  to  us.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  he  not  only 
established  principles  but  also  embodied  them  —  in  so 
far  as  the  scanty  resources  of  the  desert  and  the  nomadic 
forms  of  life  would  permit  —  in  simple  regulations.     That 


60  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

he  established  a  simple  ceremonial  system  of  Yahwfe  wor- 
ship seems  established  by  the  references  in  the  earliest 
sources  to  the  sacred  tent,  the  ark,  and  to  common  cere- 
monial usages. 

3.    The  Share  of  the  Priests  in  Developing  the  Law 

Because  of  their  peculiar  place  and  function  in  the  com- 
munity, the  Israelitish  priests  did  a  unique  work  in  develop- 
ing the  law  of  their  race.  Their  opportunity  arose  because 
to  them  the  people  resorted  to  learn  through  the  oracle  the 
will  of  Yahwe.  As  guardians  also  of  the  sanctuaries  they 
became  an  established  and  recognized  caste.  In  accordance 
with  the  regulations  laid  down  by  Moses  (Exod.  18)  ordinary 
cases  and  questions  of  right  were  referred  to  the  local 
judges,  elders,  and  tribal  chieftains  and  decided  according 
to  the  principles  already  well  established  by  earlier  prece- 
dents. Their  decision  tended  still  further  to  confirm  existing 
usage  and  to  give  to  it  the  force  of  a  definite  law.  Occa- 
sionally they  may  have  rendered  decisions  which  became  the 
basis  of  new  customs,  but  as  a  rule  they  probably  kept  within 
well  beaten  paths,  since  they  were  commanded  to  refer  all 
difficult  cases  to  a  higher  tribunal. 

One  example  has  been  preserved  of  a  law  growing  out  of 
a  ruling  of  a  military  chieftain;  after  overtaking  and  con- 
quering the  Amalekites  who  had  spoiled  their  city  Ziklag, 
the  rough  retainers  who  followed  David  in  his  outlaw  days 
refused  to  divide  the  booty  with  their  companions  who  had 
been  compelled  to  remain  behind.  David  ruled  that,  "As 
his  share  is  that  goeth  down  to  battle,  so  shall  his  share  be 
that  tarrieth  by  the  stuff:  they  shall  share  alike"  (1  Sam. 
30:24).  The  author  of  Samuel  also  adds:  "And  it  was  as 
from  that  day  forward  that  he  made  it  a  statute  and  an  ordi- 
nance of  Israel  unto  this  day  "  (1  Sam.  30:  25).i    In  the  days 

1  The  law  here  ascribed  to  the  decision  of  David,  is  referred  by  the  priestly 
historian  to  Mosaic  precedent  (Num.  31:27)  on  the  occasion  of  the  holy  war 
against  Midiaui. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  61 

of  the  monarchy  the  Hebrew  kings,  like  all  oriental  rulers, 
sat  in  judgment,  and,  as  the  highest  civil  authority  in  the 
state,  must  have  been  called  upon  to  decide  many  difficult 
cases  which  involved  new  principles  and  in  turn  established 
new  precedents  and  usages. 

It  is  significant,  however,  that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 
which  is  also  the  first  code  to  recognize  and  define  the  duties 
of  the  king,  makes  not  the  king  but  a  tribunal  at  the  central 
sanctuary,  composed  chiefly  if  not  entirely  of  priests,  the 
supreme  court  of  final  appeal.  The  law  is  addressed  to 
local  judges  and  enacts  that  when  in  any  of  their  towns  a 
case  is  brought  before  them  too  difficult  for  them  to  decide, 
they  shall  take  it  to  the  central  sanctuary  and  lay  it  before 
"the  priests,  the  Levites,  and  the  judge,  that  shall  be  in 
those  days"  for  their  "sentence  of  judgment."  Failure  to 
act  in  accordance  with  the  tenor  of  the  decision  which  they 
shall  render  shall  be  punished  with  death  (Deut.  17:8-13). 
The  language  seems  to  suggest  that  lay  judges  were  associ- 
ated with  the  priests  in  this  court,  although  the  judge  re- 
ferred to  as  announcing  the  decision  may  have  been  chosen 
from  the  ranks  of  the  priests.  The  inference  is  that  the 
priests  were  at  least  in  the  majority  and  therefore  in  civil  as 
well  as  ceremonial  questions  cast  the  deciding  vote. 

It  was  probably  under  the  monarchy  largely  by  means  of 
this  supreme  tribunal  that  questions  not  provided  for  by 
existing  customs  and  laws  were  settled  and  new  precedents 
established  as  the  basis  for  further  legislation.  Like  the 
Sanhedrin  of  later  times  it  virtually  combined  legislative 
and  judicial  and  probably  executive  functions.  It  was  the 
lineal  descendant  of  Moses,  and  its  authority  was  derived  not 
primarily  from  the  king  or  civil  government  but  from  the 
fact  that  it  was  composed  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  of  priests 
who  were  recognized  as  the  guardians  of  the  oracles  of  Yahwfe 
(compare,  e.  g.,  Deut.  33:  8,  10).  In  theory  at  least  all  diffi- 
cult cases  were  laid  directly  before  the  divine  judge.  "If  one 
man  sin  against  another,  God  will  judge  him  "  (1  Sam.  2 :  25) 
was  the  thought  of  the  latest  times  as  well  as  the  earliest. 


62  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Prophets  proclaimed  the  divine  will  and  in  early  days  were 
eagerly  consulted  by  the  people  in  regard  to  subjects  hidden 
from  the  sight  of  ordinary  man,  but  it  was  the  priests  who 
were  able  at  all  times  to  render  by  the  use  of  the  sacred  lot 
a  definite  decision  (Deut.  33:  8,  10).  To  them,  therefore, 
throughout  all  Israelitish  history  the  people  looked  for  the 
torali  of  Yahwfe.  Jeremiah  speaks  of  them  as  "they  that 
handle  the  torah^^  (Jer.  2:  8);  his  contemporaries  declared, 
indicating  the  especial  field  of  activity  of  each  of  the  three 
classes  of  enlightened  teachers :  "  The  torah  shall  not  perish 
from  the  priest,  nor  counsel  from  the  wise,  nor  the  word 
from  the  prophet"  (Jer.  18:18).  Micah  complains  that  the 
priests  render  their  decisions  for  money  (3 :  11).  Ezekiel  in 
defining  the  functions  of  the  priests  in  his  picture  of  an  ideal 
Jewish  state  says :  "  They  shall  teach  (by  their  decisions)  my 
people  the  difference  between  the  holy  and  common,  and 
cause  them  to  discern  between  the  unclean  and  clean " 
(44:23).  The  prophet  Haggai  asks  and  receives  a  charac- 
teristic torah  or  decision  from  the  priests  in  regard  to  a  cere- 
monial question  (Hag.  2 :  11-13).  In  Malachi  2 :  7  it  is  clearly 
stated:  "The  priest's  lips  should  keep  knowledge,  and  they 
should  seek  the  torah  at  his  mouth,  for  he  is  the  messenger  of 
Yahwfe  of  hosts."  Until  the  days  of  Nehemiah  at  least,  the 
priests  were  regarded  as  the  original  fountain  of  justice ;  they 
were  expected  to  render  decisions  on  all  undecided  questions, 
and  the  authority  of  the  spoken  was  apparently  regarded 
more  highly  than  that  of  the  written  torah.  They  were 
therefore  the  class  who  transformed  principle  into  practice, 
and  as  judges  were  also  the  legislators  of  ancient  Israel. 
Aside  from  them  the  Hebrews  had  no  legislative  body  like 
the  thesmothetae  of  Greece  or  the  decemvirs  of  Rome,  pos- 
sessing authority  as  the  representatives  of  the  people  and 
deliberately  enacting  and  promulgating  laws  which  were  at 
once  accepted  as  binding  upon  the  nation. 

Israelitish  law  grew  rather  as  the  early  common  law  of 
England,  being  based  originally  upon  cases  and  precedents 
rather  than  upon  statutory  enactments.     The  influence  of 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  63 

the  supreme  priestly  tribunal  upon  the  growth  of  the  law 
corresponded  closely  to  that  of  the  Court  of  Chancery  in 
England. 


4.    The  Different  Stages  in  the  Grrowth  of  the  Law 

In  the  manner  of  its  growth  early  Israelitish  law  was  not 
the  exception  but  the  type  of  the  corresponding  development 
among  all  primitive  peoples.  In  the  list  of  judges  who  sat 
upon  civil  cases  in  ancient  Babylonia  the  names  of  priests 
appear  nearly  as  frequently  as  those  of  lay  officials.  Reli- 
gious questions  were  decided  altogether  by  the  former. 
Mommsen  describes  the  Roman  leges  regice  as  mostly  rules 
of  the  fas  which  were  of  interest  not  merely  to  the  pontiffs 
but  to  the  public.  Pomponius's  statement  that  they  were 
enacted  by  the  comitia  curiata  is  now  generally  regarded  as 
a  later  theory  rather  than  an  historical  fact.  Certainly  the 
oldest  Roman  writers  accord  to  that  assembly  a  very  small 
share  in  the  work  of  legislation.  ^ 

As  in  Israel,  customs  rather  than  statutory  enactments 
seem  to  have  been,  during  the  regal  period  also,  the  chief 
basis  of  jus  as  well  as  fas.  Muirhead  maintains  that  the 
majority  of  the  laws  of  Servius  Sulpicius  were  nothing  more 
than  the  formularizations  of  customary  law  for  the  use  of 
private  judges  in  civil  causes.  Back  of  all  ancient  custom- 
ary law  —  as  the  Hebrew  writers  plainly  tell  us  —  were  the 
decisions  of  the  primitive  judges.  As  the  growth  of  custom 
belongs  in  the  Aryan  as  well  as  the  Semitic  world  to  the 
Dharma  period  or  the  period  of  divine  law,  it  takes  little 
imagination  to  recognize  here  also  by  analogy  the  work  of 
the  priests,  the  guardians  of  the  divine  oracles.  In  the  light 
of  this  study  it  is  now  possible  to  distinguish  the  different 
stages  in  the  growth  of  all  ancient  law. 

(1)  A  period  of  natural  law  or  lawlessness. 

(2)  The  period  of  divine  law,  or  the  period  in  which  all 

1  Muirhead,  Roman  Law,  p.  20. 


64  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

questions  were  referred  to  and  decided  by  men  or  classes 
regarded  as  representing  the  deity. 

(3)  The  period  of  customary  law  when  usages  sprang  up 
in  harmony  with  the  divine  decisions.  It  was  in  reality  the 
age  of  unwritten  law. 

(4)  The  period  of  codes  when  the  more  important  laws 
were  cast  in  written  form.  This  was  the  age  in  which  the 
living  tor  ah  began  to  be  crystallized^ 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  65 


THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  WRITTEN  LAW 

1.    Original  Motives  for  Committing  Laws  to  Writing 

It  is  obvious  that  while  the  people  believed  that  they  could 
through  their  priestly  judges  lay  each  case  directly  before 
Yahw^,  they  never  felt  a  strong  need  for  a  written  law. 
Until  long  after  the  exile  an  authoritative  torah  could  always 
be  secured  on  application  to  the  priests.  As  a  rule  Semitic 
peoples  even  to  the  present  day  have  little  use  for  a  written 
code,  since  custom  and  oral  law  suffice.  Of  the  many  docu- 
ments and  exact  methods  of  procedure  which  characterize 
the  occidental  law  court  there  are  few  traces  in  the  Orient. 
The  result  was  that  among  the  Hebrews  there  never  appears 
to  have  been  a  popular  demand  for  a  written  law  as  among 
the  Greeks  and  Romans.  The  motives  which  led  to  the 
committing  of  certain  laws  to  writing  came  rather  from 
Israel's  teachers.  The  first  was  the  desire  to  provide  memo- 
randa primarily  for  the  guidance  of  local  and  tribal  judges  in 
order  to  insure  justice  and  uniformity  in  their  decisions. 

It  is  illustrated  by  the  primitive  code  found  in  Exodus 
20 : 1  to  23 :  13  which  is  introduced  by  the  suggestive  formula: 
"  Now  these  are  the  judgments  which  thou  shalt  set  before 
them"  (the  people).  The  Hebrew  term  translated  "judg- 
ments "  is  mishpatim,  which  recalls  the  earlier  judgments  or 
decisions  upon  which  the  regulations  were  based.  The  de- 
tailed directions  are  introduced  by  if  or  when,  and  present 
typical  cases  with  the  penalty  to  be  inflicted  for  each  indi- 
vidual oif ence,  as  for  example :  "  If  a  man  steals  an  ox  or  a 
sheep  and  kills  it,  he  shall  pay  five  oxen  for  an  ox  and  four 

5 


66  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

sheep  for  a  sheep"  (22:1).  The  form  is  precisely  the  same 
as  that  used  in  the  ancient  Sumerian  code  adopted  by  the 
Babylonians,  and  in  force  centuries  before  the  age  of  Moses : 
"  If  a  son  denies  his  father,  his  hair  shall  be  cut,  he  shall  be 
put  in  chains  and  sold  for  silver.  If  a  wife  hates  her  hus- 
band and  denies  him,  they  shall  throw  her  into  the  river.  If 
a  husband  divorces  his  wife,  he  must  pay  her  fifty  shekels  of 
silver."  So  also  many  of  the  laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables :  "Si 
in  jus  vocat,  ito.  Si  calvitur  pedemve  struit,  manum  endo 
jacito."  The  same  formula  is  frequently  employed  in  the 
ancient  Gortynian  code  recently  discovered  in  Crete.  ^  As  in 
the  case  of  the  primitive  Roman  and  Greek  codes,  this  early 
collection  of  Hebrew  laws  may  have  been  accessible  to  the 
people,  but  it  is  evident  that  it  was  intended  rather  for  offi- 
cial judges  than  for  the  general  public. 

Although  representing  the  work  of  priests,  its  laws  have 
been  preserved  in  the  records  of  the  Elohistic  prophetic  histo- 
rian or  historians  who  are  generally  supposed  to  have  done  their 
work  about  750  B.  c.  Whether  these  laws  were  then  first 
committed  to  writing  cannot  absolutely  be  determined.  It 
is  probable  that  they  were  copied  from  an  earlier  written 
version  prepared  in  priestly  circles.  Some  of  them  un- 
doubtedly reflect  customs  and  rulings  which  are  as  old  or 
older  than  Moses.  The  absence  of  any  reference  to  the  in- 
stitution of  the  kingship  points  to  an  early  period  in  Hebrew 
history.  There  is  also  no  clear  evidence  of  the  influence  of 
the  eighth  century  prophets  which  becomes  very  apparent 
in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  and  in  the  decalogue  of 
Exodus  20. 

On  the  other  hand,  they  reflect  a  degree  of  moral  enlighten- 
ment greatly  in  advance  of  that  represented  by  the  Book  of 
Judges.  The  people  who  lived  in  accordance  with  these 
laws  had  made  considerable  progress  in  civilization.  The 
historical  background  of  many  of  them  is  not  the  primitive 
conditions  of  the  desert,  but  the  peculiar  mingled  pastoral 
and  agricultural  life  of   Canaan.      The  people  live  not  in 

1  Am.  Jour.  Arch.,  i.  333  £f.,  ii.  27  ff.     See  also  Post's  edition. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  67 

tents,  but  houses  (22 : 7).  Possessions  consist  not  merely  of 
flocks,  but  also  of  grain  fields  and  vineyards  (22:  5,  6).  The 
people  are  commanded  to  offer  Yahwfe  of  their  first-fruits 
(22 :  29)  and  to  let  the  land  lie  fallow  on  the  seventh  year, 
probably  in  recognition  of  the  ancient  communal  right  of 
ownership  which  otherwise  had  fallen  into  abeyance  (23 :  10, 
11).  Evidently  the  Hebrews  had  long  been  residents  of 
Canaan  before  these  regulations  were  completely  developed. 
The  laws  were  also  probably  current  in  oral  form  for  a  con- 
siderable period  before  they  were  committed  to  writing,  so 
that  the  code  as  a  whole  cannot  reasonably  be  dated  before 
the  reiffn  of  David  or  later  than  that  of  Jeroboam  II.  If  it 
was  of  northern  Israelitish  origin,  as  its  position  in  a  history 
usually  attributed  to  an  author  living  in  the  north  suggests, 
it  may  well  come  from  the  reign  of  Omri  the  builder  of 
Samaria  or  from  that  of  the  Yahwistic  revolutionist,  Jehu. 

2.    The  Origin  and  Date  of  the  Decalogues 

Another  primitive  motive  producing  written  laws  was  the 
desire  to  bring  forcibly  to  the  attention  of  the  people  im- 
portant principles  which  they  were  in  danger  of  ignoring. 
According  to  Deuteronomy  27 :  11-26,  this  motive  found  one 
expression  in  the  order  given  to  the  Levites  to  proclaim  pub- 
licly with  a  loud  voice  to  Israel  certain  commands,  presented 
in  the  form  of  curses,  as,  for  example,  "  Cursed  be  the  man 
that  maketh  a  graven  image  or  molten  image,  an  abomination 
unto  Yahwfe,  the  work  of  the  hands  of  a  craftsman,  and 
setteth  it  up  in  secret;  "  or  "Cursed  be  he  that  removeth  his 
neighbor's  landmark."  To  each  of  these  prohibitive  com- 
mands all  the  people  were  to  respond  "Amen."  The  other 
method  of  keeping  important  laws  before  the  minds  of  the 
people  was  to  express  them  in  concise  form  so  that  they 
could  easily  be  remembered.  Representative  of  this  method 
are  the  decalogues  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  their  origi- 
nal form  they  evidently  consisted  of  simple,  short  sentences.  ^ 

1  For  a  view  of  the  decalogues  differing  in  many  respects  from  the  conclusions 
expressed  in  this  article  and  defending  in  large  measure  the  current  popular  in- 


68  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

The  longer  versions  consist  of  the  original  command  and 
later  explanatory  or  parenetic  comments  which  have  been 
combined  by  late  editors.  The  original  brevity  of  the  com- 
mands of  the  decalogues  suggest  that  they  were  at  first  in- 
tended to  be  preserved  in  the  popular  memory.  For  centuries 
this  may  have  been  considered  sufficient.  Certainly  when 
our  present  versions  of  the  most  familiar  decalogue  were 
committed  to  writing  two  variants  of  the  last  command  were 
in  vogue  and  several  of  the  "words"  had  been  supplemented 
by  explanatory  and  hortatory  material  which  also  presented 
important  variations,  as  for  example  in  the  reasons  given  for 
the  observation  of  the  Sabbath  (cf.  Exod.  20:  10,  11,  and 
Deut.  5 :  14,  15).  Exodus  20 :  23-26  together  with  23 :  14-19 
also  apparently  represents  an  expanded  variant  version  of 
the  decalogue  of  Exodus  34:10-26. 

The  question  of  when  the  different  versions  of  the  differ- 
ent decalogues  were  first  put  into  writing  is  obscure  and 
comparatively  unimportant.  The  tradition  that  the  "ten 
words  "  found  in  Exodus  20  were  written  on  tables  of  stone 
and  placed  in  the  ark  cannot  be  traced  to  a  very  early  date, 
and  finds  no  support  in  the  earliest  historical  sources.^  The 
object  of  such  an  inscription  as  is  described  would  be  attained 
not  by  storing  it  away  in  an  ark,  but  by  putting  it  up  before 
the  eyes  of  the  people.  There  are  certain  suggestions  that 
the  custom  illustrated  among  the  Greeks  by  the  Gortynian 
code  and  among  the  Romans  by  the  Twelve  Tables  was  also  in 
vogue  among  the  Hebrews,  although  the  fact  that  no  stone 
was  found  in  Palestine  suitable  for  public  inscriptions  added 
to  the  difficulties  of  publishing  even  a  brief  decalogue. 
Joshua  8:32  states  that  after  building  an  altar  of  unhewn 
stones,  Joshua  "  wrote  there  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the 
law  of  Moses  which  he  wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children 
of   Israel."     Deuteronomy  27:2-4  also  provides  that  after 

tcrpretation,  see  Professor  G.  L.  Robinson's  inaugural  address  as  incumbent  of 
tlie  chair  of  O.  T.  Literature  and  Exegesis  at  McCormick  Theol.  Sem.,  May, 
1899,  entitled  "The  Decalogue  and  Criticism." 
1  Cf.  Benzinger,  Arch.,  368,  369. 


THE   GROWTH   OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  69 

crossing  the  Jordan  great  stones  were  to  be  set  up  and  plas- 
tered with  plaster  and  then  that  upon  these  were  to  be  writ- 
ten all  the  words  of  the  law.  The  tradition  and  the  law  are 
both  comparatively  late,  but  they  may  well  have  had  a  basis 
in  practice  at  least  during  the  literary  period  of  Israel's  his- 
tory. Isaiah's  writing  an  important  message,  which  he 
wished  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  the  people,  on  a  great 
tablet  (Isa.  8:1)  and  the  divine  command  to  Habakkuk  to 
"write  the  vision,  and  make  it  plain  upon  tables,  that  he 
may  run  that  readeth  it"  (Hab.  2:2)  establish  at  least  a 
probability  that  the  decalogues  were  in  time  set  up  at  the 
sanctuaries  where  they  could  be  seen  by  all  the  people. 

Of  these  decalogues,  that  preserved  by  the  oldest  prophetic 
historian  (J)  and  found  in  Exodus  34:  10-26  appears  to  be  the 
most  ancient.     In  its  original  simple  form  it  probably  read : 

1.  Thou  shalt  worship  no  other  god. 

2.  Thou  shalt  make  thee  no  molten  image. 

3.  The  feast  of  unleavened  bread  shalt  thou  keep. 

4.  Every  firstling  is  mine. 

5.  Thou  shalt  observe  the  feast  of  weeks. 

6.  And  the  feast  of  ingathering  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  sacrifice  with  leaven. 

8.  The  fat  of  my  feast  shall  not  be  left  until  the  morning. 

9.  The  best  of  the  firstfruits  of  thy  land  shalt  thou  bring  to 
the  house  of  Yahwe,  thy  God. 

10.  Thou  shalt  not  seethe  a  kid  in  its  mother's  milk.^ 

The  position  of  this  decalogue  in  a  document  which  itself 
dates  from  about  850-800  b.  c.  indicates  its  comparatively 
early  origin.  The  fact  that  it  emphasizes  ceremonial  rather 
than  moral  duties  also  points  to  the  early  stage  common  to 
all  primitive  cults,  when  religion  was  regarded  as  conforming 
to  a  ritual  rather  than  to  the  laws  of  ethical  righteousness. 
The  references  to  the  firstfruits  of  the  land  and  to  the  house 
of  Yahwfe  presuppose  on   the  other  hand  the    settled  agri- 

1  For  a  slightly  different  arrangement  see  Carpenter  and  Battersby's  Hexa- 
teuch,  i.  256. 


70  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

cultural  life  of  Canaan.  The  establishment  of  three  great 
feasts,  two  of  which  corresponded  to  those  observed  by  the 
Canaanites,  suggests  that  the  Hebrews  had  been  subject  to 
Canaanitish  influence  for  a  considerable  period.  Certain  of 
its  injunctions  probably  date  from  the  beginnings  of  Israelit- 
ish  history  —  as,  for  example,  not  to  seethe  a  kid  in  its 
mother's  milk,  which  is  probably  old,  because  it  reflects  the 
usages  of  nomadic  life  —  but  as  a  whole  this  decalogue  can- 
not be  earlier  than  1000  or  later  than  800  b.  c. 

The  more  familiar  decalogue  found  in  Exodus  20  (with  its 
later  variant  version,  Deuteronomy  5)  also  comes  not  from 
the  nomadic  but  from  the  settled  period  of  Hebrew  history, 
as  is  indicated  by  the  references  to  the  neighbor's  house 
and  to  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  both  representing  the 
settled  life  of  an  agriculturist.^  Unlike  the  preceding  deca- 
logue it  embodies  not  ceremonial  laws  but  the  essential  ethi- 
cal teachings  of  Amos  and  the  great  prophets  who  followed 
him.  The  first  commandment,  if  it  means  to  have  no  other 
gods  in  comparison  with  Yahwfe,  may  be  relatively  early. 
The  second  refers  to  graven  images,  but  any  definite  objec- 
tion to  the  worship  of  Yahwfe  in  the  form  of  an  ox  cannot 
be  assured  before  the  time  of  Hosea,  who,  indeed,  seems 
(3 :  4)  to  take  for  granted  the  use  of  the  "  pillar,  the  ephod 
and  the  teraphim  "  in  popular  worship.  The  third,  which 
deals  with  the  thoughtless  vulgarizing  of  the  Divine  name, 
is  a  mark  of  enlightenment,  scarcely  characteristic  of  a  primi- 
tive community.  The  sabbath,  moreover,  is  of  virtually  no 
significance  to  the  nomad.  He  always  has  an  abundance  of 
leisure  and  the  kinds  of  activity  which  he  does  pursue  can- 
not be  remitted  for  even  a  day.  It  is  a  provision  for  the 
agriculturist  and  the  man  of  commercial  or  social  business. 
The  decalogue,  therefore,  finds  its  most  natural  setting  in 
the  later  period.  Its  position  in  the  latest  prophetic  docu- 
ment (E)  and  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  it  in  the 
memoranda  for  the  guidance  of  judges  (Exod.  20 : 1  to  23 :  13) 
tend  to  confirm  the  conclusion  that  in  its  complete  written 

*  Addis,  The  Documents  of  the  Ilexateuch,  i.  139  f. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  71 

form  it  was  first  promulgated  in  the  eighth  centurj-  B.  c, 
although  the  majority  of  its  commands  may  well  have  been 
enunciated  by  Israel's  first  great  prophet-judge,  as  the  tradi- 
tion associated  with  them  suggests. 

Traces  of  other  decalogues  have  been  found  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. Concise,  clear  commands,  prescribing  single  acts, 
binding  alike  upon  all  members  of  the  community,  and  re- 
garded as  essential  for  the  preservation  of  their  religious  and 
civil  life,  mark  one  of  the  earliest  stages  in  the  development 
of  the  written  law  among  the  Hebrews  as  among  most  ancient 
peoples,  as  for  example  the  Egyptians  and  Assyrians.  They 
represent  the  formulation  or  publication  of  distinct  decisions 
or  of  customs  already  more  or  less  firmly  established. 

With  the  Hebrew  decalogue  it  is  interesting  to  compare, 
as  illustrative  of  the  peculiar  genius  of  each  race,  Leist's 
formulation  of  the  commandments  of  the  ancient  Aryans. ^ 

1.  Thou  shalt  honor  the  gods. 

2.  Thou  shalt  honor  thy  parents. 

3.  Thou  shalt  honor  thy  country. 

4.  Thou  shalt  honor  the  guest  or  the  man  needing  protection. 

5.  Thou  shalt  keep  thyself  pure. 

6.  Thou  shalt  not  give  way  to  thy  sensual  nature. 

7.  Thou  shalt  not  kill. 

8.  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

9.  Thou  shalt  not  lie. 

The  groups  of  commands  and  mishpatim  including  hoth.  jus 
and /as  grouped  together  without  any  thoroughgoing  attempt 
at  systematic  arrangement  and  now  found  in  Exodus  13:20 
to  24,  and  34,  may  be  designated  as  the  primitive  Israelit- 
ish  codes.  They  represent  —  although  only  partially  • —  the 
growth  of  Israelitish  law  from  the  earliest  times  to  about 
750  B.  c. 

1  Altarisches  Jus  Gentium,   172  ff. 


72  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

3.    Private  Codes,  embodying  New  Principles  and  Adapted  to 
New  Needs  —  The  Deuteronomic  Code 

Before  decisions  and  customs  were  crystallized  into  codes, 
Israeli tish  law  grew  unconsciously  and  naturally,  adapting 
itself  to  new  needs,  new  conditions  and  new  standards ;  but 
when  ancient  regulations  assumed  written  form  they  held  the 
field  with  that  persistency  which  characterizes  an  institution 
hallowed  by  tradition.  Meantime  Hebrew  life  and  thought 
were  undergoing  rapid  and  sweeping  transformations,  espe- 
cially during  the  latter  part  of  the  eighth  and  the  earlier  part 
of  the  seventh  century  b.  c.  Assyrian  armies  overran  Judah, 
and  all  the  Palestinian  states  were  annexed  to  the  great  con- 
quering empire.  New  political,  social,  and  religious  prob- 
lems called  forth  the  epoch-making  sermons  of  Amos,  Hosea, 
Isaiah,  and  Micah.  A  wealth  of  new  principles  was  re- 
vealed to  the  consciousness  of  the  nation.  Although  they 
did  not  meet  with  general  acceptance,  they  were,  neverthe- 
less, cherished  in  the  hearts  of  certain  disciples  of  the 
great  prophets.  The  reactionary  reign  of  Manasseh  not 
only  silenced  the  true  prophets  and  led  them  to  seek  other 
methods  of  teaching,  but  also  rendered  glaringly  apparent 
the  inadequacy  of  the  primitive  codes  to  meet  the  needs  of 
the  changed  conditions  and  to  save  the  Hebrew  people  from 
the  new  temptations  which  were  overwhelming  them. 

The  existence  of  written  codes,  coming  from  a  less  enlight- 
ened past  and  therefore  partially  sanctioning  customs  which 
were  at  length  recognized  as  debasing,  complicated  the  prob- 
lem. In  the  rank  and  file  of  the  priesthood  which  was  under 
the  patronage  of  the  monarchy  and  naturally  interested  in 
conserving  existing  conditions  and  customs  there  were  few 
to  take  the  initiative. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  these  obstacles  there  was  found  a  man, 
or  more  probably  a  group  of  men,  whether  priests  or  prophets, 
at  least  broad  enough  to  be  in  sympathy  with  the  noblest 
ideals  of  both  classes  of  teachers,  and  bold  enough  to  prepare 
during  the  period  of  enforced  silence,  when,  under  Manasseh 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  73 

and  his  son,  Amon,  Assyrian  religion  was  all  the  fashion  in 
Judah,  a  new  code  of  laws  calculated  to  remove  prevalent 
evil  practices.  The  result  was  the  so-called  Book  of  the 
Covenant  represented  by  the  majority  of  the  laws  found  in 
chapters  12  to  26  and  28  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  ^ 

A  study  and  comparison  of  these  with  those  of  the  primi- 
tive codes  reveal  the  aim  and  method  of  their  unknown 
author  or  authors.  Every  earlier  law  or  custom  that  was 
regarded  worthy  of  preservation  was  allowed  to  stand.  A 
detailed  comparison  shows  that  the  primitive  codes  of  Exodus 
20:  22  to  23: 13  are  used  as  the  foundation  of  the  new  legisla- 
tion found  in  Deuteronomy  12  to  26 ;  while  Deuteronomy  5  to 
11  is  chiefly  a  hortatory  expansion  of  the  first  command  of  the 
decalogue  found  in  Exodus  20.  With  a  very  few  exceptions 
(Exod.  20 :  25-27 ;  21 :  18  to  22 :  15 ;  22 :  28,  29*')  every  law  con- 
tained in  the  earlier  codes  is  represented  in  the  later. ^  The 
exceptions  relate  to  the  penalties  to  be  inflicted  for  certain 
injuries  and  were  probably  omitted  because  they  were  of  in- 
terest to  judges  rather  than  to  the  general  public  for  whom 
the  new  code  was  intended.  In  only  one  or  two  cases  is  an 
entire  law  quoted  verbatim  (cf.  Ex.  23: 19^;  34:  26^^  and  Deut. 
14:  21'').  Frequently  portions  or  clauses  of  the  older  laws  are 
quoted  literally  (cf .  Exod.  21 :  2-7  and  Deut.  15 :  12-17 ;  Exod. 
23:4,  5  and  Deut.  22: 1-4).  More  often  the  ancient  ruling 
is  recast  in  the  peculiar  language  of  the  Deuteronomic  law- 
giver and  explanations  and  exhortations  added  (cf .  Exod.  21 : 
2-7  and  Deut.  15 :  12-18).  In  other  cases  the  principle 
underlying  the  older  enactment  is  expanded  and  differently 
applied  (cf.  Exod.  21: 12-14  and  Deut.  19: 1-13). 

Undoubtedly  many  ancient  customs  and  unwritten  laws 
also  for  the  first  time  appeared  in  writing  in  the  new  Book 
of  the  Covenant  (e.  g.,  Deut.  21:15-17).  Certain  existing 
laws,  however,  were  dangerous  and  had  to  be  absolutely  set 
aside.     The  most  familiar  were  those  which,  conforming  to 

1  The  original  code  was  probably  augmented  at  an  early  date  by  certain  inser- 
tions and  by  the  addition  of  the  laws  found  in  chapters  5-11. 

2  Cf.  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  Introd.  iv-viii. 


74  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

earlier  usage,  sanctioned  the  many  high  places  scattered 
throughout  Judah  (cf .  Exod.  20 :  24-26),  and  presided  over  by 
local  priests  who  conserved  many  of  the  harmful  customs  of 
less  enlightened  times.  New  laws  were  therefore  devised 
absolutely  abrogating  the  older  (Deut.  12 : 1-28).  Charac- 
teristic of  the  new  code  were  a  large  number  of  enactments 
embodying  the  great  principles  advocated  by  the  prophets  of 
the  eighth  century.  In  many  cases  it  is  easy  to  trace  the 
new  law  directly  back  to  its  fountain  source  in  the  writings 
of  Amos,  Hosea  or  Isaiah.  Hosea,  for  example,  condemns 
the  northern  Israelites  because  they  "  sacrifice  upon  the  tops  of 
the  mountains,  and  burn  incense  upon  the  hills,  and  under 
the  oak  and  the  poplar,  and  the  terebinth,  because  the  shade 
thereof  is  good"  (4:13;  cf.  Isa.  1:29);  and  the  Deutero- 
nomic  code  enacts :  "  You  shall  surely  destroy  all  the  places, 
wherein  the  nations  that  you  shall  dispossess  served  their 
gods,  upon  the  high  mountains,  and  upon  the  hills,  and 
under  every  green  tree"  (12:2).  The  emphasis  which  the 
new  law  placed  upon  the  duty  of  love  to  God  and  man  (6:5; 
10:19;  25:1-3)  is  manifestly  an  echo  of  Hosea's  sublime 
teaching  regarding  Yahw^,  whom  he  represents  as  a  God 
of  love  and  as  demanding  that  his  people  shall  reveal  the 
same  attribute  in  their  relations  to  him  and  to  each  other. 
The  prominent  humanitarian  and  jDhilanthropic  element,  fre- 
quently enforced  by  exhortations  and  historical  illustrations, 
which  renders  unique  this  remarkable  code,  is  simply  an 
earnest  attempt  to  realize  in  Israelitish  life  the  moral  and 
religious  ideals  of  the  prophets.  The  new  code  was  pro- 
jected for  the  guidance  not  primarily  of  judges  but  of  the 
mass  of  the  people.  Its  enactments  are  carefully  expanded, 
lucidly  formulated  and  made  definite.  Exhortations  and 
reasons  why  a  given  law  should  be  observed  are  frequently 
appended.  Little  is  said  about  legal  processes.  The  exact 
penalty  to  be  inflicted  for  a  given  crime  is  often  left  to  the 
judges.  Definite  conditions  and  needs,  and  the  principles 
calculated  to  meet  them  are  at  all  times  clearly  before  the 
eyes  of  the  law-giver.      Prepared  in  secret,  the  work  of  a 


THE   GROWTH   OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  75 

man,  or  at  most  of  a  small  group  of  men,  unknown  and  un- 
authorized, except  by  God  himself,  and  aiming  to  set  aside 
some  of  the  most  firmly  established  laws  and  institutions  of 
the  race,  its  popular  acceptance  and  enforcement  must  have 
seemed  a  very  dim  and  distant  possibility.  When  confronted 
with  the  necessity  of  modifying  existing  written  laws,  the 
law-givers  of  most  ancient  nations  resorted  to  what  might  be 
called,  in  the  broad  sense  defined  by  Maine, ^  "legal  fictions," 
for  they  aimed  to  conceal  the  fact  that  the  earlier  codes  had 
been  fundamentally  revised  or  set  aside.  Legal  fictions  of 
this  type  proved  valuable  aids  to  human  progress,  for  they 
enabled  the  ancients,  who  were  very  reverential  toward  the 
traditions  inherited  from  their  past,  to  break  with  them  easily 
and  almost  unconsciously.  New  regulations  were  simply 
regarded  as  expansions  of  the  old,  which  as  a  matter  of  fact 
they  often  superseded.  Although  the  fiction  was  transparent, 
the  Twelve  Tables  continued  for  centuries  nominally  to  be  the 
sole  foundation  of  Roman  law.  The  author  or  authors  of  the 
Deuteronomic  code  employed  a  peculiar  and  characteristically 
Hebrew  form  of  legal  fiction  to  reconcile  the  new  with  the 
old.  The  new  laws  were  all  put  into  the  mouth  of  Moses 
(5 : 1),  and  the  historical  point  of  view  of  the  desert  was 
retained  throughout,  even  though  the  majority  of  the  regu- 
lations are  manifestly  incongruous  with  the  life  of  nomads 
and  contemplate  conditions  which  did  not  arise  until  centu- 
ries after  the  Hebrews  entered  Canaan.  In  this  way  the 
unity  of  Israelitish  law  was  maintained,  even  though  conflict- 
ing enactments  were  attributed  to  the  same  traditional  father 
of  Hebrew  legislation. 

If  legal  fictions  or  assumptions  concealing  or  affecting  to 
conceal  the  fact  that  a  rule  of  law  has  undergone  alteration 
are  ever  justifiable  —  and  it  is  now  generally  admitted  that 
at  certain  stages  in  the  growth  of  law  they  conserve  very 
important  ends  —  that  devised  by  the  authors  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic codes  was  legitimate.     It  incorporated  a   large  body 

1  Ancient  Law,  p.  25.  In  modern  law  the  term  "legal  fiction"  is  used  in 
a  much  more  limited  sense. 


76  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

of  ancient  laws  and  customs  which  they  and  their  contempo- 
raries believed  to  have  come  from  Moses,  so  that  not  to  have 
acknowledged  the  debt  would  have  been  in  itself  unjustifi- 
able. The  new  elements  were  the  necessary  expansion  of 
the  old  or  else  the  application  of  principles  enunciated  by 
Moses'  successors,  the  great  prophets  of  the  eighth  century. 
The  code  as  a  whole  represented  in  general  what  the  great 
Israelitish  prophet  and  judge  would  in  all  probability  have 
enacted  had  he  been  confronted  by  the  conditions  prevalent 
in  Judah  during  the  latter  half  of  the  seventh  century  b.  c. 
It  was  most  natural  that  his  authority  should  have  been 
invoked  to  insure  the  acceptance  and  enforcement  of  what 
would  otherwise  probably  have  been  only  a  "  paper  "  code. 

4.    Tlie  Public  Ratification  of  the  Deuterononiic  Code 

The  manner  in  which  the  private  codes  now  preserved  in 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  became  and  continued  for  two  cen- 
turies to  be  the  one  law  acknowledged  by  the  Israelites  in 
Palestine  is  recorded  in  Second  Kings  22  and  23.  Back  of 
the  record  of  its  discovery  in  the  temple,  of  its  presentation 
to  King  Josiah,  and  its  solemn  acceptance  by  the  people  can 
plainly  be  seen  the  gradual  decline  of  Assyrian  influence  in 
Palestine,  the  reaction  against  the  heathenism  of  Manasseh's 
reign,  and  the  quiet  but  earnest  work  of  priestly  and  pro- 
phetic reformers,  like  Zephaniah,  Jeremiah,  and  probably  Hil- 
kiah,  who  prepared  the  minds  of  king  and  people  for  the 
sweeping  changes  which  resulted  from  its  promulgation. 
The  sermons  of  the  prophets  and  the  authority  of  Josiah 
did  not  suffice  to  secure  its  permanent  enforcement,  however, 
until  the  exile  impressed  indelibly  upon  the  consciousness  of 
the  Jewish  race  the  prophetic  principles  underlying  the  new 
code. 

With  its  public  presentation  in  621  b.  c.  the  period  of 
Israelitish  written  law  may  be  said  to  have  begun.  As  be- 
fore, many  unwritten  laws,  not  committed  to  writing,  con- 
tinued to  guide  judges  and   people,  and,  as  the   new  code 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  77 

distinctly  decrees,  cases  not  directly  provided  for  were  re- 
ferred to  an  authoritative  priestly  tribunal  (Deut.  17);  but 
henceforth  the  great  majority  of  the  acts  of  the  people  were 
definitely  regulated  by  a  fixed  S5^stem  of  laws  which  they 
could  readily  consult  and  with  which  they  were  expected  to 
be  reasonably  familiar. 

5.    Theoretical  Private  Codes  [EzeJciel  4-0  to  4^) 

The  regulations  of  Deuteronomy  would  probably  long  have 
sufficed  for  the  needs  of  the  Israelitish  race  had  not  the 
Babylonian  exile  put  a  sudden  end  to  the  monarchy  and  the 
religious  customs  which  centered  about  the  first  temple. 
The  catastrophe  of  586  b.  c.  and  the  radically  changed  con- 
ditions introduced  by  the  exile  among  the  leaders  of  Israel 
made  necessary  new  laws  and  called  forth  from  private 
sources  a  series  of  new  codes.  Traces  of  three  or  four  dis- 
tinct groups  of  laws  have  been  discovered.  The  first  was 
devised  by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  who  was  carried  from  Jeru- 
salem at  the  first  captivity  in  597  b.  c.  The  fact  that  he  was 
a  ]3riest  and  probably  acquainted  with  the  ritual  of  the  sec- 
ond temple  explains  the  prominence  which  he  gives  to  regu- 
lations relating  to  the  sanctuary  and  its  services.  He  also 
lived  at  the  beginning  of  a  period  when,  excluded  from  all 
participation  in  political  affairs,  his  race  devoted  itself  to  its 
religious  problems.  The  prophets  had  declared  that  the 
nation  was  being  punished  for  its  failure  to  serve  God 
aright;  the  problem  was  how  best  to  remedy  the  situation. 
In  his  code,  found  in  chapters  40  to  48  of  his  collected  writ- 
ings, Ezekiel  sets  aside  many  of  the  regulations  of  the  Deu- 
teronomic  law,  as  freely  as  the  authors  of  that  code  abrogated 
still  earlier  usages.  The  prince,  who  corresponds  to  the  king 
of  pre-exilic  times,  he  makes  little  more  than  the  financial 
agent  of  the  temple  (45 : 8-17).  Instead  of  giving,  as  does 
Deuteronomy,  the  priests  of  the  destroyed  high  places  prac- 
tically equal  rights  with  those  who  had  originally  ministered 
at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  he  designates  them  as  Levites  and 


78  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

entrusts  to  them  only  the  more  menial  duties  in  connection 
with  the  temple  (44:4-31).  In  his  plan  for  the  restored 
community  the  land  is  to  be  allotted  arbitrarily  with  the 
temple  in  the  center,  the  property  of  the  priests  and  Levites 
located  next  to  its  reservation,,  and  outside  of  all  the  territory 
of  the  different  tribes.  The  chief  aim  in  this  unique  code  is 
to  correct  certain  evils  in  the  pre-exilic  constitution  and  to 
emphasize  the  authority  and  holiness  of  Yahwfe  by  making 
his  temple  and  the  priests  who  represent  him  the  center  of 
the  national  life,  and  by  protecting  them  from  close  contact 
with  anything  which  would  ceremonially  defile. 

Ezekiel's  code  unlike  that  of  Deuteronomy  is  not  that  of 
a  man  dealing  with  present  conditions,  but  rather  that  of  a 
theorist  who  planned  an  ideal  set  of  adjustments  for  the 
future.  Like  the  productions  of  most  theorists  it  was  never 
practically  adopted.  Possibly  the  fact  that  it  was  not  asso- 
ciated with  the  name  of  Moses  may  explain  in  part  why  it 
was  ignored  by  the  Jewish  leaders  when  they  undertook  the 
actual  work  of  reconstruction.  It,  however,  exerted  an  in- 
direct influence  in  various  ways.  Its  plan  for  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  temple,  the  priestly  customs  upon  which  it  laid 
stress  and  the  longing  to  promote  national  holiness  which  it 
embodied  affected  strongly  certain  later  codes,  and  through 
them  was  effective  in  moulding  Jewish  legislation  and 
practice. 

6.    Formative  Ceremonial  Codes 

Ezekiel  gave  expression  to  the  strong  tendency  toward 
ritualism  which  was  beginning  to  be  felt  among  the  Jewish 
priests  exiled  in  Babylonia.  Others  following  his  example 
devoted  themselves  to  developing  more  definite  and  practical 
laws,  embodying,  like  those  of  Deuteronomy,  many  customs 
observed  in  connection  with  the  first  temple,  and  at  the  same 
time  enforcing  objectively  by  precepts  and  ceremonials  Eze- 
kiel's dominant  idea  of  the  holiness  of  Yahwfe  and  the  com- 
plemental  truth  that  his  people  must  likewise  be  holy.     At 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  79 

last  the  teaching  of  the  earlier  prophets  that  the  woes  which 
had  overtaken  their  race  were  due  to  their  wilful  disobedience 
of  Yahw^'s  commands  was  popularl}^  accepted.  All  the  life 
of  the  nation  was  therefore  shaped  with  a  view  to  atoning  for 
the  sins  of  the  past  and  guarding  against  anything  which 
would  pollute  it  in  the  future.  Being  priests,  and  influenced 
by  the  powerful  example  of  their  Babylonian  masters,  it  was 
natural  that  the  Jewish  lawgivers  should  especially  empha- 
size ceremonial  righteousness.  The  words  of  Yahw^  ad- 
dressed to  the  nation :  "  Sanctify  yourselves  and  be  ye  holy, 
for  I  Yahwfe  your  God  am  holy""  (19:  2;  20:  7,  26)  was  the 
refrain  and  the  watchword  of  the  body  of  laws  formed  chiefly 
in  Leviticus  17  to  26  and  commonly  known  as  the  "  Holiness 
Code."  Its  kinship  with  Ezekiel's  code  indicates  that  it 
came  from  the  same  general  period  and  point  of  view.  Like 
the  Deuteronomic  code,  it  undoubtedly  incorporated  many 
earlier  unwritten  laws.  It  was  evidently  written  at  an  earlier 
date  than  the  remaining  laws  found  in  Exodus  (excepting  of 
course  13;  20-24;  34),  Leviticus,  and  Numbers,  and  known 
as  the  Priestly  Code.  The  preservation  of  the  portions  of 
the  Holiness  Code  which  we  possess  was  apparently  due  to 
the  fact  that  it  was  quoted  by  the  authors  of  the  later 
Priestly  Code  and  incorporated  in  their  more  elaborate  sys- 
tem, or  else  placed  there  by  its  final  editors.  There  are  no 
indications  that  the  Holiness  Code  by  itself  was  accepted  by 
the  Jews,  but,  like  that  of  Ezekiel,  it  appears  to  have  con- 
tinued for  a  long  time  to  have  been  only  a  private  system  in 
the  keeping  of  the  priestly  exiles. 

The  fact  that  its  laws,  like  those  of  Deuteronomy,  were 
put  into  the  mouth  of  Moses  undoubtedly  gave  to  them  a 
growing  value  and  authority,  as  the  prestige  of  the  great 
leader  grew  in  the  esteem  of  succeeding  generations.  Also 
legalizing  as  they  did,  the  tendency  of  the  Palestinian  Jews 
and  those  of  the  dispersion  toward  increased  ceremonialism, 
it  was  most  natural  that  the  framers  of  the  complete  Priestly 
Code  should  make  them  the  foundation  of  their  system. 

To  the  Holiness  Code  they  appear  to  have  added  material 


80  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

drawn  from  certain  other  minor  codes.  These  are  introduced 
by  such  formula  as:  "This  is  the  torah  of  .  .  ."or  "This 
shall  be  the  torah  of  .  .  ."  (cf.  Lev.  6:9,  14,  25;  7:  1,  11; 
11:46;  12:7;  14:2,  32,54,57;  15:32;  Num.  5:29;  6:13, 
21;  19:  14).  These  smaller  collections  evidently  embody 
the  toroth  or  teachings  of  the  priests  regarding  such  subjects 
as  sacrifice,  leprosy,  personal  impurity  and  the  Nazirite  vow. 
That  they  are  frequently  based  on  the  earlier  usage  of  the 
pre-exilic  temple  is  suggested  by  their  character  and  by  the 
recurring  phrase  "according  to  the  ordinance."  Differences 
in  language,  points  of  view,  and  teachings  indicate  that  they 
are  not  all  from  one  hand  but  from  a  kindred  group  of 
writers.  Similarly,  minor  variations  distinguish  them  in  turn 
from  the  Holiness  Code.  They  have  been  appropriately 
designated  collectively  as  the  "  Priestly  Teaching "  (P*). 
They  are  found  chiefly  in  Leviticus  1  to  3,  5  to  7,  11  to  15, 
and  Numbers  5,  6,  15,  and  19 :  14-22.  They  have  been  freely 
re-edited  and  often  expanded  by  the  later  priestly  compilers; 
but  in  their  original  written  form  they  probably  came,  like 
Ezekiel  40  to  48  and  the  Holiness  Code,  from  the  priestly 
exiles  in  Babylon  who  wrote  not  long  after  Nebuchadrezzar 
transported  them  from  Judah.  No  exact  date  can  be  fixed, 
for  these  codes  were  naturally  not  all  developed  at  once. 
They  antedate,  however,  the  work  of  the  author  or  authors  of 
the  ceremonial  laws  and  customs,  which  constitute  the  main 
body  of  the  Priestly  Code,  for  the  latter  presents  a  still  fur- 
ther expansion  of  the  ritual.  The  evidence  indicates  that  the 
completion  of  the  main  body  of  the  Priestly  Code  and  its 
fusion  with  the  earlier  Holiness  Code  and  Priestly  Teaching 
took  place  not  long  before  the  reformation  instituted  in 
Judah  by  the  combined  efforts  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra.  In 
setting  aside  usages  which  were  sanctioned  by  the  Primitive 
and  Deuteronomic  Codes  —  which  continued  until  Nehemiah's 
appearance  to  be  the  only  ones  recognized  in  Judah  —  the 
reformer  never  appealed  to  the  new  Priestly  Code,  but  repeat- 
edly showed  by  his  acts  that  he  was  familiar  with  the  princi- 
ples to  which  it  gave  definite  expression.     Thus  in  selling 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  81 

their  children  into  slavery  the  Jews  were  justified  by  the  laws 
of  Exodus  21:2-6  and  Deuteronomy  15:12-18.  In  con- 
demning their  action  (Neh.  5),  Nehemiah  interpreted  the  re- 
gulation of  Leviticus  25 :  39-41  which  enacts  that  no  Hebrew 
shall  be  made  a  "  bondservant.  "^ 

In  some  instances  Nehemiah's  reform  measures  reveal  his 
ignorance  of  certain  of  the  priestly  laws.  While  he  reversed 
the  ruling  of  Deuteronomy  (14:  22-29;  26:  12-15)  and  pro- 
vided that  all  the  tithes  should  be  given  to  the  Levites  (Neh. 
13 :11-13),  there  is  no  indication  that  he  was  acquainted  with 
the  law  of  Numbers  18 :  24-28  which  provided  that  a  tithe 
of  the  tithes  should  be  handed  over  to  the  priests. 

7.    The  Public  Ratification  of  the  Priestly  Code 

The  evidence  is  conclusive  that  until  after  the  preliminary 
reformatory  measures  of  Nehemiah,  the  Priestly  Code  was 
unrecognized  and  probably  unknown  to  the  Jews  of  Pales- 
tine.^  Like  the  Deuteronomic  Code  before  621  b.  c,  it  was 
originally  only  a  private  code,  except  in  so  far  as  it  embodied 
earlier  usages.  The  manner  in  which  the  two  codes  gained 
popular  acceptance  is  strikingly  similar  in  each  case.  Before 
they  were  publicly  presented,  the  people  were  prepared  for 
them  by  the  preaching  of  earnest  prophets  and  reformers. 
The  Book  of  Malachi  and  the  closing  chapters  of  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  contain  stirring  reform  sermons  coming  from  the 
agre  of  Nehemiah.  The  vigorous  rebuilder  of  Jerusalem 
himself  did  as  much  in  rebuilding  its  morals  and  religion  as 
its  wall  of  stone.  On  his  own  authority  and  initiative,  he 
instituted  reforms  and  established  precedents  which  must 
have  influenced  the  makers  of  the  completed  Priestly  Code. 
At  least  he  prepared  the  Jews  of  Palestine  for  its  more  radi- 
cal enactments,  so  that  when,  about  400  B.  c.,^  Ezra  appeared 

1  For  other  examples  see  Kent,  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  184-199. 

2  Note  the  admirable  summary  of  Carpenter  in  Carpenter  and  Battersby, 
Hexateuch,  i,  135  ff. 

^  For  the  evidence  that  the  work  of  Nehemiah  preceded  that  of  Ezra,  see  Kent, 
History  of  the  Jewish  People,  195-198. 

6 


82  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

with  the  new  law  book  in  his  hands,  they  were  ready  to 
receive  it. 

Since  in  the  post-exilic  period  the  priest  had  absorbed  the 
power  of  the  king,  it  was  natural  that  it  should  be  a  priestly 
scribe  who  publicly  presented  the  new  law  to  the  people. 
Nehemiah  10  records  its  solemn  acceptance  by  the  commun- 
ity. As  in  the  case  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  its  authority 
was  derived  nominally  from  Moses,  to  whom  each  of  all  of 
its  enactments  were  attributed,  but  in  reality  from  its  adap- 
tation to  existing  conditions  and  its  public  adoption  by  the 
people.  Henceforth  the  life  of  the  Jewish  community  was 
conformed  to  it  and  thereby  transformed. 

The  oath  taken  by  the  people  and  recorded  in  Nehemiah 
10:30-39  emphasized  the  most  important  elements  in  the 
new  law.  It  is  significant  that  five  out  of  the  eight  regu- 
lations therein  recounted  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the 
Priestly  Code.  The  law  book  of  Moses  brought  by  Ezra 
from  the  land  of  the  exile  was  therefore  none  other  than  the 
Priestly  Code  in  its  original  form.  Its  growth,  however, 
does  not  appear  to  have  immediately  ceased  when  it  was 
accepted  by  the  Jewish  community.  The  Pentateuch  con- 
tains regulations  unknown  in  the  days  of  Ezra.  The  poll 
tax,  for  example,  for  the  support  of  the  temple  was  later 
increased  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  a  temple  shekel  (Exod. 
30 :  11-16 ;  38 :  26).  Later  still  it  was  commanded  to  bring  to 
the  temple  a  tithe  of  the  herd  and  flock  (Lev.  27 :  30-33)  as 
well  as  of  the  field.  The  elaborate  law  in  regard  to  the  day 
of  atonement  (Lev.  16)  seems  to  have  been  added  later  still. 
It  was  natural  that  the  process  of  revision  and  expansion 
which  had  already  gone  on  for  at  least  four  centuries  should 
not  cease  at  once.  New  needs  still  arose  and  new  tendencies 
wliich  in  a  legalistic  age  required  and  produced  new  enact- 
ments. In  succeeding  generations  the  tradition  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  all  Israelitish  legislation  became  more  and  more 
firmly  established.  No  law  associated  with  any  other  name 
was  regarded  as  possessing  authority.  Individual  regula- 
tions, whose  origin  was  forgotten  by  later  generations  were 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  83 

soon  classified  by  tradition  as  Mosaic  and  added  to  the  older 
code.  Later  law-makers  desiring  to  promulgate  a  new  law 
could  hope  to  attain  their  end  only  by  introducing  it  into  the 
larger  Mosaic  code. 

How  long  the  expansion  of  the  Priestly  Code  continued 
cannot  be  definitely  determined.  Not  until  the  different 
codes  were  combined,  as  they  now  appear  in  the  Pentateuch, 
and  the  canon  and  text  of  the  law  began  to  be  carefully 
guarded,  did  it  cease.  The  Greek  period  is  the  earliest  date 
that  can  be  assigned  with  assurance.  At  least  by  250  b.  c. 
when  the  Septuagint  translation  was  made,  after  five  centu- 
ries of  development,  the  Israelitish  written  law  was  complete. 


84  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


VI 

THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  ORAL  LAW 

With  the  unchallenged  dominion  of  the  completed  priestly- 
law  there  arose  a  peculiar  social  condition  among  the  Jews 
who  dwelt  at  or  near  the  sacred  city.  They  may  be  said  to 
have  developed  a  sort  of  abnormal  passion  for  the  legalistic 
formulation  of  all  activity.  A  sense  of  dependence  upon 
exactly  phrased  laws  for  the  proper  regulation  of  community 
and  personal  life  grew  upon  them.  This  habit  of  mind  at 
once  created  a  difficulty  more  embarrassing  still.  The  writ- 
ten law,  by  its  very  ascription  to  the  great  founder  of  Israel's 
organized  life,  tended  rapidly  to  become  fixed  in  form  and 
substance.  On  the  other  hand  the  habit  of  legalism  fostered 
a  dependence  upon  law  which  called  for  new  formulas  to 
meet  the  freshly  realized  needs  of  the  community. 

It  is  often  supposed  that  from  the  days  of  Nehemiah  and 
Ezra  to  the  time  of  our  Lord  the  Jewish  nation  was  in  a  state 
closely  resembling  coma.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the 
truth.  For  half  a  century  or  so  the  little  "province,"  as  it 
is  called,  enjoyed  a  relatively  uneventful,  peaceful,  and  happy 
existence,  but  it  was  rudely  awakened  first  by  the  later  Per- 
sian kings,  then  by  Alexander,  later  by  those  who  were  in- 
terested in  forcing  Hellenic  customs,  culture,  and  cultus 
upon  it.  The  four  centuries  that  intervened  were  excep- 
tionally active  and  thoughtful  periods,  introducing  the  Jewish 
people  to  novel  and  fascinating  impulses  and  ideals,  not 
merely  through  their  enemies  who  would  force  these  upon 
their  acceptance  but  through  their  own  kinsmen,  some  of 
whom  by  long  residence  in  the  great  commercial  centres  of 
the  world  had  become  imbued  with  a  deep  respect  for  Hel- 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  85 

lenism  and  the  progress  which  it  embodied,  while  others, 
native  to  Palestine,  had  been  taken  captive  by  its  sensuous 
and  intellectual  attractions. 

The  changes  thus  brought  about  within  Judaism,  had  the 
effect,  on  the  whole,  of  intensifying  the  allegiance  of  the 
Jewish  people  to  what  they  regarded  as  the  unaltered  stand- 
ards of  the  past.  But  this  loyalty  could  be  maintained  only 
by  the  maintenance  of  another  legal  fiction.  According  to 
their  constant  declaration,  the  Mosaic  law  could  not  change, 
and  must  cover  every  possible  case  of  religious  or  social  need. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  it  did  change  and  failed  to  offer  a  regu- 
lation for  many  problems  which  the  altering  conditions 
raised. 

Such  a  situation  could  not  fail  to  give  rise  to  some  expe- 
dient which  would  meet  the  need  yet  respect  the  sentiment. 
The  people  were  unwilling  to  trust  to  the  passing  decision  of 
a  judge  or  priest;  they  turned  to  the  scribes  whose  duty  it 
had  become  to  copy,  study,  and  teach  the  law.  They  be- 
came its  interpreters,  recognized  as  qualified  to  determine 
in  what  way  the  provisions  of  the  law,  universally  accepted 
as  binding  upon  loyal  Jews,  could  be  extended  to  cover  a 
situation  not  directly  contemplated  by  the  older  regulations. 
This  duty  they  accepted  with  hesitancy;  their  authority  they 
used  with  moderation.  The  greatest  and  wisest  among  them 
were,  according  to  Rabbinic  tradition,  the  only  ones  permitted 
to  promulgate  decisions.  They  sought  at  first  to  merely 
extend  to  new  cases  old  and  well  established  principles. 

This  process  gave  in  course  of  time,  an  exaggerated, 
almost  fantastic  importance  to  the  written  law.  Obedience 
to  it  came  to  mean  a  closely  literal  compliance  with  its  exact 
commands.  The  theory  gained  ground  that  complete  obedi- 
ence even  for  a  day  might  serve  to  bring  about  the  long 
expected  messianic  age.  Little  by  little,  therefore,  the 
scribes  developed  a  scheme  by  which  each  definite  precept 
of  the  law  was  made  certain  of  observance  by  being  included 
within  a  series  of  practical  regulations  which  were  more  ex- 
acting than  the  original.     This  was  termed  by  them  "  raising 


86  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

a  hedge  about  the  law."  Excellent  as  was  the  motive  which 
inspired  such  attempts,  it  led  to  deplorable  results  in  the 
lapse  of  time. 

In  the  first  place,  it  made  religion,  in  any  adequate  sense, 
a  profession.  The  ordinary  man  who  earned  his  living  hon- 
estly by  hard  work,  could  hardly  hope  for  recognition  as  one 
who  met  the  complete  requirements  of  the  law,  so  minute 
and  technical,  so  varied  and  innumerable  did  these  become. 
Again,  and  for  the  same  general  reason,  religion  became  a 
burden,  to  be  borne  with  resolution  or  resignation,  as  the 
type  of  personality  was  buoyant  or  sad.  Widely  it  differed 
from  the  happy,  festive  religious  experience  of  earlier  days. 
Finally  the  oral  law  came  so  to  overlay  the  written  law  on 
which  it  was  based  as  to  overshadow  it  in  importance  in  the 
estimation,  not  merely  of  the  scribes  themselves  but  of  the 
people,  their  dupes.  It  is  this  diseased  condition  of  mind  to 
which  our  Lord  addresses  himself  in  his  public  declarations 
regarding  the  law.  With  the  spirit  and  often  the  letter  of 
the  genuine  law  he  was  in  real  harmony ;  with  its  perversion 
through  the  ingenuity  of  the  rabbis  he  had  little  patience. 


THE    GROWTH   OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  87 


YII 

CONCLUSIONS 

MoDEEN  investigation  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the 
laws  found  in  the  Old  Testament  came  not  from  one  author 
but  from  a  myriad ;  not  from  one  generation  but  from  not  less 
than  eight  centuries  of  generations.  Israelitish  law  grew 
gradually  and  progressively.  "  First  the  blade,  then  the  ear, 
and  then  the  full  corn  in  the  ear."  It  grew  as  new  needs 
and  new  conditions  arose,  and  as  new  political,  ethical,  or 
religious  principles  were  apprehended  by  the  nation  or  by 
its  leaders.  In  proclaiming  ever-broadening  conceptions  of 
God  and  duty,  ever  higher  and  nobler  standards  of  life,  the 
prophets  were  the  precursors  and  inspirers  of  the  law-makers. 
Without  their  constant  and  powerful  influence  Israelitish 
law  would  probably  never  have  risen  far  above  its  common 
Semitic  source. 

The  priests  as  guardians  of  the  sanctuary,  teachers  of  the 
people,  judges  of  important  causes,  and  the  mouthpieces  of 
Yahwe's  will  were  the  real  law-makers  of  Israel,  transform- 
ing principles  into  definite  regulations.  By  authoritative 
decisions  they  established  binding  precedents  which  gradually 
moulded  custom,  and  this  in  time  crystallized  into  clear, 
concise,  readily  remembered  decalogues  or  else  into  simple 
laws  for  the  guidance  of  local  judges.  New  laws  were  con- 
stantly taking  form  as  new  cases  were  referred  to  the  priestly 
tribunal  connected  with  the  temple,  and  new  decisions,  estab- 
lishing new  precedents,  were  rendered. 

Beginning  at  an  early  date  all  primitive  laws  were  attrib- 
uted to  Moses  precisely  as  proverbs  were  attributed  to  Solo- 
mon and  psalms  to  David.     This  tendency,  resting  as  it  did 


88  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

upon  a  large  basis  of  fact  and  upon  the  vitally  close  connec- 
tion of  the  later  and  earlier  legislation,  promoted  the  harmless 
and  helpful  legal  fiction  whereby  later  law-givers  associated 
the  whole  body  of  reformulated  and  enlarged  legislation  with 
the  name  of  Israel's  first  great  organizer  and  judge,  and 
were  thus  able  to  secure  their  ready  popular  acceptance  and 
authoritative  application.  It  recognized  the  preservation  of 
Mosaic  ideals  and  precedents  in  the  new  legislation  and  gave 
to  the  legal  system  of  Israel  a  nominal  unity  much  desired  by 
ancient  peoples  tenacious  of  early  traditions,  while  enabling 
them  to  modify  or  set  aside  regulations  which  time  and 
change  had  made  inoperative  or  unwise. 

Later  codes  like  the  Deuteronomic,  the  Holiness  legisla- 
tion and  the  Priestly  Code  were  prepared  privately  and  ex- 
isted for  some  time  before  they  were  submitted  to  the  nation. 
In  each  case  their  adaptation  to  the  new  needs  of  the  race 
and  their  supposed  Mosaic  authorship  facilitated  their  public 
adoption.  In  many  instances  they  simply  formulated  prin- 
ciples and  customs  established  by  recent  precedents.  Before 
the  new  codes  were  adopted  their  champions  prepared  the 
minds  of  the  people  for  them  by  means  of  public  and  private 
instruction  and  exhortation.  Their  final  ratification  was  by 
a  representative  national  assembly. 

While  the  Israelites  retained  ancient  laws  on  the  statute 
books,  they  usually  enforced  those  of  the  latest  code,  when- 
ever this  (as  in  the  case  of  the  law  regarding  sacrifice)  invali- 
dated ancient  customs  and  regulations.  Our  Lord  in  openly 
rejecting  early  laws,  such  as  those  relating  to  divorce  or 
retaliation,  was  acting  in  perfect  accord  with  the  spirit  and 
methods  long  followed,  not  in  theory  but  in  practice,  by 
Israel's  law-givers.  He  was  no  more  of  a  destroyer  of  the 
law  than  they  were,  for  it  was  the  sifting  of  the  best  from 
the  comparatively  imperfect,  and  the  substitution,  in  place 
of  the  latter  of  new  laws  embodying  higlier  ideals  which  con- 
stituted their  real  contributions  to  Israel's  law  and  which  in 
time  imparted  to  it  its  value  and  uniqueness.  The  teaching 
of  Jesus,  therefore,  in  the  truest  sense  represented  not  the 


THE   GROWTH  OF  ISRAELITISH  LAW  89 

destruction  but  the  fulfilment,  the  bringing  to  completion, 
the  final  goal  of  the  growth  of  Israel's  legislation. 

The  student  of  the  history  of  Israelitish  law  must  recog- 
nize its  deep  indebtedness  to  the  historic  past.  As  a  Semitic 
people,  closely  akin  to  the  Assyro-Babylonians,  the  Phoeni- 
cians, the  Arabs  and  the  Canaanites,  the  Israelites  began 
with  a  body  of  inherited  tendencies,  traditions,  and  usages 
which  the  study  of  the  social  and  religious  life  of  these 
nations,  as  revealed  to  us  by  archaeological  research,  is  mak- 
ing more  and  more  definite  and  important.  The  original  ele- 
ment in  Israel's  legislation  is  not  to  be  found  in  particular 
provisions  so  much  as  in  its  spirit,  and  in  the  standards 
which  it  upheld. 

The  progress  of  Israelitish  legislation  was,  moreover, 
greatly  affected  by  the  historic  environment  of  the  nation. 
The  Hebrews  were  a  people  which  did  not  hesitate  to  utilize 
the  resources  and  opportunities  presented  to  them  from  any 
outside  source.  In  all  but  their  religious  development  they 
did  not  materially  differ  from  the  nations  about  them.  The 
Canaanites,  the  Phoenicians,  the  Assyrians,  the  Babylonians, 
the  Persians  and  the  Greeks  in  turn  exercised  upon  them  a 
perceptible  influence.  Even  in  religious  matters,  particu- 
larly as  regards  the  forms  of  religious  life,  this  influence  can 
be  traced.  The  Hebrews  were  not  at  all  a  hermit  nation  in 
pre-exilic  days ;  although  the  Judaism  of  the  fourth  century 
B.  c.  and  later  was  reserved,  suspicious,  and  sufficient  to  it- 
self. In  the  earlier  times  the  nation  was  singularly  open  to 
impressions  and  hospitable  to  progress,  a  disposition  which 
enables  the  student  to  understand  the  rapid  changes  in  social, 
political,  and  religious  life,  which  are  mirrored  in  Israel's 
legislation. 

The  growth,  so  characteristic  of  Hebrew  legislation  during 
the  centuries  from  the  establishment  of  the  nation  in  the  land 
of  Canaan  until  the  development  of  Judaism,  which  we  have 
already  noted  as  continuing  in  some  measure  to  the  begin- 
nings of  the  Christian  era,  did  not  even  then  come  to  an 
absolute  conclusion.     Christendom  while  virtually  adopting 


90  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

from  the  Jews  their  view  of  the  importance  and  eternal 
validity  of  the  written  law,  followed  as  well  the  example  of 
Jesus  in  seeking  to  obey  it  in  the  spirit  rather  than  in  the 
letter.  His  teachings  were  at  the  same  time  regarded  as  of 
equal  validity  and  of  more  direct  application  to  the  needs  of 
every-day  life.  Hebrew  law  thus  interpreted  from  a  Chris- 
tian standpoint  had  no  little  influence  upon  the  legal  think- 
ing of  subsequent  centuries. 

An  historical  study  of  Israelitish  legislation  only  serves, 
after  all  that  can  be  said  in  regard  to  influences  which  led 
to  modifications  and  reformulations,  to  bring  out  in  boldest 
relief  the  divine  share  in  these  changes.  That  God  was  a 
factor  in  this  growth  is  a  profound  and  significant  fact,  not 
because  it  affords  an  easy  and  mechanical  explanation  of 
the  actual  origin  of  important  changes  in  Israel's  legal  his- 
tory, but  because  it  adequately  expresses  the  truth,  which 
every  student  of  Israel's  remarkable  history  must  admit,  that 
the  consciousness  of  the  immediate  presence  and  power  of 
God,  the  righteous,  holy,  and  only  ruler  of  the  universe, 
which  gradually  became  the  sure  possession  of  the  leading 
minds  among  the  Hebrew  race,  was  the  working  factor  which 
can  never  be  ignored  in  the  consideration  of  Israel's  prog- 
ress, and  was  the  determining  element  in  that  broader  out- 
look and  deeper  insight  which  forced  the  nation  to  ever 
readjust  and  reformulate  its  political,  social,  and  religious 
constitution. 


THE  YECER  HARA 

A   STUDY   IN    THE    JEWISH/ DOCTRINE  OF  SIN 


FRANK  CHAMBERLIN  PORTER,  PH.D.,  D.D., 
WiNKLEY  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  Yale  University. 


THE  YEQER  HARA 

A  STUDY  IN  THE  JEWISH  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN 

I 

INTRODUCTORY 

In  the  study  of  the  Jewish  background  and  environment 
of  New  Testament  theology  no  problem  is  more  important 
and  difficult  than  that  presented  by  the  interaction  between 
Hebraic  and  Greek  modes  of  thought  which  had  gone  on, 
within  Judaism,  during  the  last  three  centuries  before  Christ. 
The  influence  of  Greek  ideas  upon  the  Jews  was  most  diverse 
both  in  degree  and  in  kind,  and  is,  not  only  because  of  this 
variety  and  complexity,  but  also  because  of  the  nature  of  our 
sources,  very  difficult  to  retrace.  Yet  the  failure  to  recog- 
nize it  where  it  is  present,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  unreflect- 
ing assumption  of  its  presence  where  it  does  not  exist,  on  the 
other,  lead  to  serious  faults  of  interpretation,  and  prevent  a 
true  understanding  of  the  history  of  religious  thought  in 
New  Testament  times. 

Among  the  contrasts  between  Hebrew  and  Greek  thought, 
one,  which  has  far-reaching  consequences,  relates  to  the  nature 
of  man.  Man  was  to  the  Hebrew  a  unity.  Body  and  soul 
were  but  the  outer  and  inner  sides  of  one  being.  Man's  body 
was  of  the  dust,  while  the  breath  of  God  was  the  principle  of 
life  within  him ;  but  man  himself  was  the  single  product  of 
these  two  factors.  On  the  other  hand,  Greek  thinkers,  influ- 
enced especially  by  Plato,  had  developed  a  strongly  dualistic 
conception  of  man.  Body  and  soul  were  regarded  as  two 
essentially  contrasted  and  really  unrelated  things.  The  soul 
is  the  man.     It  existed  before  its  entrance  into  the  body,  and 


94  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

will  continue  to  exist  after  its  departure  from  the  body  at 
death.  The  body  is  foreign  to  the  soul's  nature  and  even 
hostile  to  the  soul's  purity  and  higher  life.  The  resulting 
eschatology,  the  conception  of  the  immortality  of  the  soul, 
and  the  resulting  ethics,  the  idea  that  virtue  is  to  be  at- 
tained by  the  conquest  and  subjugation  of  the  body,  in  which 
evil  has  its  seat  and  its  power,  were  each  radically  opposed 
to  Hebrew  thought,  yet  each  had  a  strong  influence  on  cer- 
tain late  Jewish  and  on  Christian  conceptions.  The  effort 
to  trace  the  interaction  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  conceptions  in 
the  region  of  eschatology  sets  one  upon  the  right  path  through 
the  mazes  of  that  fascinating  and  significant  subject,  and  only 
on  this  path  can  the  history  of  late  Jewish  and  early  Chris- 
tian thought  regarding  future  things  be  intelligently  traced. 
Less  perhaps  has  been  done  to  make  clear  the  relations  of 
Hebrew  and  Greek  thought  in  the  region  of  ethics,  and  it  is 
to  a  corner  of  this  field  that  the  following  study  is  given. 

The  interest  of  the  problem  has  centered,  so  far  as  the  New 
Testament  is  concerned,  in  Paul's  contrast  of  spirit  and  flesh. 
Is  this  a  Hebrew  contrast,  and  therefore  essentially  moral  and 
religious  in  contents,  or  is  it  Greek,  and  so  psychological  or 
metaphysical  in  nature?  Is  Paul's  contrast  of  spirit  and 
flesh  essentially  the  contrast  between  God  and  man,  the  holi- 
ness of  God  and  the  sinfulness  of  man;  or  is  it  essentially 
the  contrast  between  soul  and  body,  the  holiness  of  the  soul, 
and  the  sinfulness  of  the  body;  or  is  it  some  sort  of  union  of 
the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek  dualisms  ?  It  is  not  the  purpose 
of  this  essay  to  discuss  these  questions,  but  only  to  examine 
a  Jewish  conception  in  which  some  have  found  a  parallel  to 
Paul's  doctrine,  and  a  clue  to  its  meaning.  The  conception 
has,  indeed,  an  interest  of  its  own  apart  from  its  bearing 
upon  the  interpretation  of  Paul. 

Pfleiderer,  revising  his  treatment  of  Pauline  theology  in 
the  light  of  Weber's  well  known  book  on  the  Doctrines  of 
the  Talmud,!  based  his  interpretation  of  Paul's  conception  of 

1  A  posthumous  work  by  Dr.  Ferdinand  Weber,  published  first  by  Delitzsch 
and  Schnedermann  with  the  title,  System  der  Altsynagogalen  Paldstinischen  Theo- 


THE    YECER  HARA  95 

spirit  and  flesh  upon  the  rabbinical  doctrine  of  the  good  and 
evil  impulses.  1  In  a  summary  of  Jewish  Palestinian  Theol- 
ogy, based  on  Weber,  he  says:  "The  natural  ground  of  sin 
lies  in  the  fact  that  the  soul,  in  itself  pure  by  creation,  is  in 
each  man  defiled  by  the  impure  body.  The  body,  however, 
is  impure,  not  merely  because  it  consists  of  perishable  earthly 
material,  but  especially  because  it  is  the  seat  and  source  of 
the  evil  impulse.  For  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation 
God  endowed  man  with  a  double  impulse,  the  impulse  to 
good  in  the  soul  and  the  impulse  to  evil  ( Yeger  Hara)^  which 
adheres  to  the  body  and  expresses  itself  first  in  the  form  of 
the  impulse  to  sense  enjoyment  which  man  has  in  common 
with  all  animals."  This  impulse,  "because  it  belongs  to  the 
nature  of  the  body,"  was  present  in  man  from  the  first  but 
gained  predominant  power  through  the  fall.  "  But  man  pos- 
sesses also  the  good  impulse  innate  in  his  soul,  and  therewith 
the  possibility  of  withstanding  the  evil  impulses  of  the  body  " 
(Urchristenthum,  pp.  166  f).^  Again,  Jewish  theology  "as- 
cribed to  human  nature,  corresponding  to  its  two  sides,  body 
and  soul,  a  twofold  impulse :  the  evil  impulse,  which  has  its 
seat  in  the  body,  springing  from  impure  earthly  matter,  and 
the  good  impulse,  which  dwells  in  the  rational  soul,  springing 
from  God  "  (p.  181).  With  this  doctrine  Pfleiderer  finds  Paul, 
in  Romans  7:  7-24,  wholly  in  accord.  The  good  impulse 
dwells  in  the  inner  man  {vov<;) ;  the  evil  impulse  has  its  seat 
in  the  body  which  consists  of  impure  flesh-material.  The 
conflict  is  between  "the  sinful  impulse  in  the  flesh"  and 
"the  good  impulse  of  the  reason  "  (p.  182  ff.).  "The  flesh  is 
the  seat  of  a  positive  power  antagonistic  to  spirit,  the  evil 
impulse,  or  sin  as  a  potency."  "This  v6/xo<;  r^?  dfiapTia<i  6 
(ov  ev  Tot<;  fieXeaiv  fiou  (Rom.  7  :  23)  is  precisely  the  same  as  that 
which  Jewish  theology  calls  '  the  evil  impulse  which  dwells 

logie  (1880),  then  with  the  title  Die  Lehren  des  Talmud  (1886),  and  finally  in  a  26. 
edition  by  Schnedermann,  with  corrections,  under  the  title,  Jiidische  Tkeologie  auf 
Grund  des  Talmud  und  verwandter  Schriften  (1897). 

1  Das  Urchristenthum  (1887),  Der  Paulinismus,  2d  ed.  (1890). 

2  So  in  Paulinismus,^  pp.  20-21,  57,  65,  with  reference  to  Weber  §§  40,  46, 48-50. 


96  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

in  the  body, '  and  the  v6iJio<i  voo^;  jjlov  is  the  same  as  '  the 
good  impulse  which  dwells  in  the  soul.'  "^ 

Later  writers  on  Pauline  theology  have  in  part  adopted 
Pfleiderer's  view.  Those  who  have  questioned  or  rejected 
it  have  done  so,  as  far  as  I  have  observed,  on  the  ground 
that  the  sources  of  Weber's  book  are  post-Christian,  and  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  good  and  evil  impulses  belongs  only  to 
post-Christian  Judaism,  and  is  itself  due  to  Greek  influence. 
So  Gunkel  ^  simply  refuses  to  use  Weber's  material  for  the 
pre-Pauline  period.  Holtzmann  ^  regards  the  analogy  offered 
by  the  rabbinical  yeger  liara  as  "  only  very  general  and  weak, 
also  questionable  in  respect  to  contemporaneity,  and  perhajDS 
already  testifying  to  Greek  influences."  SchmiedeH  agrees 
that  Paul  thinks  of  sin  as  a  power  bound  by  nature  with  the 
material  of  the  body,  but  says  that  at  this  point  Paul  stands 
on  the  ground  of  Greek  philosophy,  with  its  metaphysical 
dualism  between  the  spirit  springing  from  God  and  matter 
evil  in  itself.  Against  Pfleiderer's  appeal  to  the  Jewish  doc- 
trine of  the  evil  impulse  stands  the  "  pressing  suspicion  "  that 
this  also  is  derived  from  Greek  philosophy.  "If  this  doc- 
trine, provable  only  from  post-Pauline  sources,  is  pre-Paul- 
ine, then  the  indirect  way  through  this  for  the  explanation 
of  the  Greek  element  in  Paul's  conception  of  the  adp^  would 
certainly  be  preferable,  since  the  direct  points  of  contact 
with  Philo  are  not  significant." 

But  is  it  true  that  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  two  impulses 
has  this  dualistic  character,  which,  in  its  contrast  to  the  Old 
Testament  view,  we  must  regard  as  of  Greek  origin  ?  Does 
the  good  impulse  inhere  in  the  soul,  the  evil  impulse  in  the 
body?  It  appears  to  me  clear  that  Pfleiderer  is  responsible 
for  a  certain  misrepresentation  of  Weber  at  this  point,  and 
also  that  Weber  himself  has  fallen  into  a  serious  misuse  of 
his  sources,  giving  a  Greek  coloring  to  a  conception  which 

1  Pauh'nismus  ^,  pp.  66-67. 

2  Die  Wirkungen  des  heiligen  Geistes,  p.  107  (2  ed.,  p.  98). 
8  Neuicslamentliche  Theoloqie,  ii.  p.  39  n.  1. 

*  Iland-Commeniar  zum  Neuen  Testament"^,  II.  i.  p.  2.55. 


THE   YECER  HARA  97 

was  and  remained  genuinely  Hebraic  in  character.  The  im- 
portance of  Weber's  treatise  and  the  fact  that  his  fault  in 
this  matter  is  not  without  parallel  at  other  points  in  his  book 
may  justify  a  somewhat  detailed  criticism  before  we  turn  to 
a  more  positive  treatment  of  the  rabbinical  doctrine  of  the 
yeger^  and  finally  raise  the  question  whether  it  is,  as  Holtz- 
mann  and  Schmiedel  affirm,  attested  only  by  post-Christian 
sources. 


98  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


II 

CRITICISM  OF  WEBER'S  TREATMENT   OF  THE  YEQER 

Against  Pfleiderer's  summary  of  Weber  it  is  to  be  noticed 
that  Weber  nowhere  says  that  the  good  impulse  has  its  seat 
in  the  soul.  On  the  contrary  he  says,  "  God  created  also  in 
the  human  body  a  good  impulse  (i/e^er  toh')"  and  "the  body 
is  called  the  seat  of  a  yeger  ra  and  a  yeger  toh  "  (p.  204 
P211]).  The  accuracy  of  this  expression  will  be  questioned 
hereafter,  but  in  any  case  Pfleiderer  should  not  have  put  the 
expression  "the  good  impulse  which  dwells  in  the  soul  "in 
quotation  marks,  for  it  is  his  own  invention.  It  is  essential 
to  his  parallelism  (Rom.  7 :  23  )  but  it  is  not  in  his  only  author- 
ity. The  impression  which  Weber's  discussion  makes  at  this 
point  (§§  46,  47)  is  that  the  soul,  the  free  moral  agent,  comes 
into  a  body  endowed  by  nature  with  good  and  evil  tenden- 
cies, and  has  the  task  of  suppressing  the  evil  and  making  the 
good  prevail. 

It  must,  however,  be  acknowledged  that  Weber  has  made 
such  an  interpretation  as  Pfleiderer's  possible  by  the  emphasis 
with  which,  especially  in  §§  48,  49,  he  connects  the  evil  im- 
pulse with  the  body.  When  he  argues  that  while  the  soul  is 
pure  by  nature  the  body  is  impure,  "not  only  because  it  is 
perishable,  but  because  it  is  the  seat  of  the  evil  impulse  " 
(220  f.  [2228f.]),  the  inference  is  natural,  though  it  is  not 
expressed,  that  the  good  impulse  has  its  seat  in  the  soul. 
Weber  in  one  passage  seems  inclined  to  identify  the  soul 
with  the  good  impulse.  He  says  that  it  is  the  soul  which 
keeps  the  Law,  and  holds  communion  with  God,  while  "it 
is  the  yeger  hara  of  the  body  which  desires  and  effects  sin." 


THE   YECER  HARA  99 

"Yet,"  he  continues,  "there  exists  a  close  relation  between 
body  and  soul.  The  soul  is  called,  with  the  powers  of  wis- 
dom that  dwell  in  it,  to  be  yeger  toh  against  the  yeger  ra^  to 
further  goodness,  and  thereby  to  weaken  the  yeger  ra "  (p. 
222).  An  effort  is  made  to  clarify  this  awkward  sentence 
in  the  2d  ed.  (p.  230),  but  the  meaning  remains  the  same. 
The  language  is  Weber's  own  and  is  supported  by  no 
reference. 

But  though  he  wavers  in  regard  to  the  seat  of  the  good 
impulse,  there  is  no  obscurity  in  regard  to  the  evil.  It  is 
defined  as  "  the  impulse  inherent  in  the  body  to  fulfil  bodily 
functions  which  are  directed  to  maintenance  and  propaga- 
tion" (p.  204  p211]).  Let  us,  then,  examine  the  references 
which  Weber  cites  to  justify  the  view  that  the  body,  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  soul,  is  the  seat  of  the  evil  impulse.^ 

We  read :  — 

"That  the  ye^er  hara  dwells  in  the  body  according  to  its 
nature  by  creation  is  shown  by  Genesis  rabba,  eh.  34.^^  Here  the 
question  whether  this  impulse  arises  in  man  before  or  after  birth 
is  decided  in  the  former  sense-,  but  of  the  soul  it  is  said  that  it 
unites  itself  with  the  body  only  after  birth"  (p.  204  [='211]). 

This  would  seem  indeed  to  be  conclusive  proof  that  the  evil 
impulse  belongs  to  the  body  and  not  to  the  soul,^  but  unfortu- 

1  The  haggadic  parts  of  the  rabbinical  literature,  which  here  concern  us,  have 
been  made  in  considerable  measure  accessible  to  those  who  are  not  rabbinical 
scholars,  by  translations.  See  especially  Wiinsche's  Der  jerusalemische  Talmud  in 
seinen  haggadischen  Bestandtheilen,  1880  ;  Der  babylonische  Talmud  in  seinen  hagga- 
dischen  Bestandtheilen  1886-89;  Bibliotheca  Rabbinica,  1880-1885;  and  Gold- 
schmidt's  Der  babylonische  Talmud  (text  and  translation)  1897  +  \j\ot  yet  com- 
plete]. The  chronological  and  critical  study  of  the  teachings  of  the  rabbis  has 
been  greatly  advanced  by  W.  Bacher's  Die  Agada  der  babylonischen  Amoraer,  1878; 
Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten  [from  Hillel  to  the  conclusion  of  the  Mishna,  30  B.  c. 
-220  a.  d.],  1884-90;  and  Die  Agada  der  paldstinensischen  Amoraer  [from  the 
close  of  the  Mishna  to  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century],  1892-99.  Many  of 
the  citations  made  in  this  article  are  from  Wiinsche  or  Bacher ;  some  are  from 
other  translations,  though  the  intention  has  been  to  consult  the  original  at  all 
points  of  doubt  or  of  critical  importance. 

2  See  Wiinsche,  p.  152. 

3  It  is  cited,  from  Weber,  in  that  sense  by  Clemen,  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der 
SUnde,  1897,  p.  185  f. 


100  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

nately  Weber  lias  reversed  the  sense  of  the  passage  he  cites.  ^ 
It  is  one  of  tlie  reported  conversations  between  Rabbi  Juda  I. 
and  (the  emperor?)  Antoninus,  found  also  in  the  Talmud. ^ 
Antoninus  asked  when  the  evil  impulse  begins  to  rule  in 
men,  at  conception  or  at  birth.  Rabbi  answered,  at  concep- 
tion. Antoninus  replied.  In  that  case  the  child  would  vio- 
lently come  forth  out  of  the  womb ;  I  say  therefore  rather, 
at  birth.  Rabbi  acknowledged  that  Antoninus  was  right,  and 
found  proof  of  this  view  in  Gen.  4:  6,  "Sin  lurks  at  the  door," 
i.  e.,  of  the  womb.  Antoninus  then  argued  against  Rabbi 
that  the  soul  is  joined  to  the  body  not  at  birth  but  at  concep- 
tion, since,  as  flesh  cannot  be  preserved  three  days  without 
salt,  so  the  body  could  not  endure  even  before  birth  without 
the  soul.  Rabbi  yielded  again,  and  found  proof  of  this  view 
—  to  him  new  —  in  Job  10: 12.  It  is  interesting  to  notice 
that  these  two  questions  are  asked  and  answered  independ- 
ently of  each  other,  as  if  the  coming  in  of  the  evil  ^eger  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  relation  of  body  and  soul;  and  also 
that  such  questions  are  asked  by  a  heathen,  that  the  Jew  has 
no  fixed  view  in  regard  to  them  but  is  ready  to  change  his 
first  impression  and  to  look  for  the  necessary  scriptural  proof 
of  the  position  maintained  on  the  grounds  of  common  sense 
by  the  heathen.  The  question  when  the  soul  enters  the  body 
is  discussed  elsewhere  and  differently  answered,  but  is  brought 
into  no  connection  with  the  question  of  the  yeger. 
Weber  proceeds :  — 

*'  God  has,  however,  created  in  the  human  body,  on  the  other 
hand,  a  (/ood  impulse  also.  This  is  inferred,  in  Beruchoth  60'', 
from  the  two  yods  in  'y^ii'S  (Gen.  2:7).  Man  has  two  reins;  the 
one  counsels  to  the  good,  the  other  to  the  evil  (Ps.  16:7) 
Berach.  61",  61".  Nedarlm  32"  therefore  calls  the  body  the  seat 
of  an  evil  yr^er  and  a  good  yeqer^ 

Let  us  examine  these  references.      In  Berach.  60"  [61*]  we 
find  three  answers  to  the  question  why  there  are  two  Tjods  in 

1  He  cites  it  more  correctly  on  p.  221  {j  229],  hut  there  also  with  unjustified 
inferences. 

2  Sank.  91^  of.  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  II.  457-459. 


THE    YECER   HARA  101 

nV**1  (Gen.  2:7).  R.  Nachman  b.  R.  Chiscla  said:  Because 
God  created  (i^'llJ)  two  impulses  (DH^O^  the  good  and  the 
evil.  R.  Nachman  b.  Isaac  answered:  In  that  case  ani- 
mals would  not  possess  the  (evil)  impulse,  since  only  one 
yod  is  used  in  their  case  (Gen.  2 :  19) ;  but  in  fact  they  have 
it,  since  they  bite  and  kick.  So  the  explanation  of  R.  Simon 
b.  Pazzi  is  preferred:    Woe  to  me  before   my  creator,  and 

woe  to  me  before  my  ye(^er  (♦^V^D  v  *1{<1  *"1^V0  *7  ^IJ^)*"^ 
Or  also  that  of  Jeremiah  b.  Eleasar:  Two  faces  God  created 
in  Adam,  as  is  written:  Thou  hast  formed  me  O^niV) 
behind  and  before  (Ps.  139:5).  It  is  evident  that  the  first 
of  these  interpretations  of  Gen.  2 :  7,  even  if  it  had  not  been 
set  aside  for  others,  would  not  justify  the  inference  which 
Weber  seems  to  draw  that  because  *1^*^1  refers  to  the  body 
before  the  breath  of  life  had  entered  it,  therefore  the  two 
impulses  were  supposed  to  have  their  seat  in  the  body  in 
distinction  from  the  soul.  The  inference  might  indeed  have 
been  made,  but  it  was  not.  Still  less  does  the  passage  justify 
the  statement  which  Hamburger  strangely  bases  upon  it,  that 
the  two  impulses  were  identified  with  the  two  parts  of  man's 
nature,  the  evil  with  the  dust  of  which  he  was  formed,  and 
the  good  with  the  breath  of  life  by  which  he  became  a  living 
soul.  In  fact  the  passage  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 
whether  the  impulses  inhere  in  soul  or  body. 

I  have  not  noticed  any  other  rabbinical  sayings  which 
bring  Gen.  2 : 7  into  connection  with  the  problem  of  the 
yeger,  and  of  these  two  the  one  which  has  a  dualistic  appear- 
ance is  less  acceptable  than  the  other.  This  fact  is  in  itself 
significant,  suggesting  that  the  problem  was  one  of  ethics, 
not  of  psychology ;  for  scarcely  any  other  passage  in  the  Old 
Testament  was  so  well  adapted  to  form  the  foundation  of  a 
theory  that  connects  sin  with  the  physical  and  good  with  the 
psychical  side  of  man's  nature;  and  the  use  of  the  root  *^lf^ 
and  also  the  suggestion  of  Ps.  103:14,  might  have  made 
such  a  use  of  the  passage  the  more  natural. 

^  Found  also  in  Eruhin,  18".     See  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  441  f. 
2  Real-Encyclopddie  fur  Bibel  und  Talmud,  II.  1231. 


102  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

The  next  citation  {Berach.  61*"^)  reads :  The  rabbis  taught, 
Two  reins  are  in  man,  the  one  counsels  him  to  good  and  the 
other  to  evil,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  good  is  on  his  right 
and  the  evil  on  his  left,  for  it  is  written,  "A  wise  man's 
heart  is  at  his  right  hand;  but  a  fool's  heart  is  at  his  left" 
(Eccles.  10:2). 

Here  we  have,  of  course,  not  a  literal  identification  of  the 
impulses  with  the  two  kidneys.  The  word  reins  (nv'?^)  i^ 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  prevailingly,  as  the  word  heart 
is  used  almost  exclusively,  not  of  the  physical  organ,  but  of 
the  inner  man,  the  inmost  self.  In  the  saying  before  us  the 
two  kidneys  in  the  physical  man  suggest  the  two  impulses 
in  man  as  a  moral  being.  The  word  yeger  is  not  used  in  this 
sentence,  but  it  is  discussed  in  the  context.  The  same  inter- 
pretation of  Ecclesiastes  10  :  2,  with  the  use  of  the  word 
yeqer^  is  found,  in  connection  with  several  other  interpreta- 
tions of  the  verse,  in  Num.  rah.  22  (Wunsche,  p.  527).  That 
the  two  impulses  reside  in  the  body  in  distinction  from  the 
soul  the  passage  does  not  prove. 

But  what  of  Nedarim  32^,  which  "  calls  the  body  the  seat 
of  an  evil  impulse  and  a  good  impulse  ?  "  The  passage  is 
R.  Ammi  b.  Abba's  interpretation  of  Ecclesiastes  9:  14,  15, 
and  is  found  also,  anonymously,  after  many  other  interpreta- 
tions, in  Koliel.  rah.  9 :  14,  15.  The  little  city,  he  said,  is  the 
body,  the  few  men  in  it,  the  members ;  the  great  king  who 
comes  against  it,  the  evil  yeger  ;  the  bulwarks,  sins ;  the  poor 
wise  man  in  it,  the  good  yeger ;  his  wisdom  which  delivered 
the  city,  penitence  and  good  works.  The  passage  contains 
no  justification  for  Weber's  statement.  If  the  figure  were  to 
be  pressed  so  as  to  yield  any  result  as  to  the  seat  of  the  im- 
pulses it  would  be  that  the  good  impulse  resides  in  the  body 
while  the  evil  impulse  comes  against  it  from  without.  But 
any  such  use  of  the  passage  is  a  misuse.  That  the  city  is 
called  the  body  rather  than  the  soul  or  heart  is  perhaps  to 
provide  for  an  easier  explanation  of  the  citizens.  At  all 
events  the  passage  does  not  "  call  the  body  the  seat  of  an  evil 
impulse  and  a  good  impulse." 


THE    YECER  HARA  103 

The  next  passage  in  Weber  to  be  examined  is  as  follows :  — 

"This  sin  [Adam's]  in  its  final  ground  has  God  for  its  cause. 
For  he  created  the  corporeity  with  the  yeger  hara,  without  which 
sin  would  not  have  been  possible  {Gen.  rah.  27  Jalkut  Shim-.  Gen. 
44,  47).  In  the  latter  passage  we  read:  Eepentance  came  upon 
me  that  I  had  created  man  of  earthly  substance  (JltOD /D);  for 
if  I  had  created  him  of  heavenly  substance  he  would  not  have 
become  a  rebel  against  me.  And  further:  Repentance  arose  in 
my  heart,  said  God,  that  I  created  in  him  the  yeger  hara;  for 
if  I  had  not  done  this  he  would  not  have  become  a  rebel  against 
me  (p.  214  [2 2211])." 

I  have  not  verified  the  reference  in  the  later  source,  Jalkut 
(thirteenth  century),  but  the  earlier  form  of  the  sayings  re- 
veals the  serious  misuse  of  them  of  which  Weber  is  guilty. 
The  passage  (Gen.  rah.,  27;  Wiinsche,  pp.  122,  565;  Bacher, 
Tan..,  II.  245)  gives  various  interpretations  of  Genesis  6  :  6* 
(and  it  repented  [0(1^1]  Yahw^  that  he  had  made  man  on  the 
earth  [t^^J^D]).  R-  Juda  b.  Ilai  interpreted  thus:  I  repent 
that  I  created  man  below  (JD!D /^,  i-  e.,  on  the  earth),  for 
if  I  had  created  him  above  (*/i?D70,  i- &•■>  in  heaven)  he 
would  not  have  fallen  away  from  me.  R.  Nehemiah  an- 
swered: I  console  myself  (*^K  DIUDD)  that  I  created  him 
below  {'r\^f2h'0)''  ^*^^  ^^  ^  ^^^  created  him  above  he  would 
have  seduced  those  above  (Q^JV/^il'  *•  ^"i  ^^^^  angels)  to  fall 
away  from  me,  as  he  has  seduced  those  below.  According 
to  R.  Ibo  the  meaning  was :  I  repent  that  I  created  in  him 
the  yeger  hara,  for  if  I  had  not  created  it  in  him  he  would 
not  have  risen  up  against  me  (Bacher,  Amor.  III.  68). 

Weber's  rendering  of  IIDD/XD,  "von  irdischer  Substanz," 
and  of  TnVt2/t2'>  "von  himmlischer  Substanz,"  is  wholly  un- 
justifiable ;  and  so  also  is  his  blending  of  two  distinct  inter- 
pretations of  Genesis  6  :  6,  and  his  connection  of  the  evil 
impulse  in  one  with  the  supposed  earthly  substance  in  the 
other,  and  of  the  good  impulse  with  the  heavenly  substance. 
Of  "corporeity"  and  any  connection  of  the  evil  impulse  with 
the  body  the  passage  says  absolutely  nothing. 


104  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Again  Weber  says :  — 

"  That  the  body  is  impure,  not  merely  as  perishable,  but  be- 
cause it  is  the  seat  of  the  evil  impulse,  we  see  from  what  is  said 
in  Num.  rah.  13  (Wtinsche,  p.  312)  :  God  knew  before  he  created 
man  that  the  desire  of  his  heart  would  be  evil  from  his  youth 
(Gen.  8:  21).  '  Woe  to  the  dough  of  which  the  baker  himself 
must  testify  that  it  is  bad.'  This  Jewish  proverb  can  be  applied 
to  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  man.  Then  the  dough  is  the  body, 
which  God  (the  baker)  worked  and  shaped,  and  the  impurity 
of  the  body  is  grounded  in  the  fact  that  it  is  the  seat  of  the 
yeger  hara,  which  is  in  the  body  that  which  leaven  is  in  the 
dough  (HD^i^^tJ^  *ni<b^>  cf.  1  Cor.  5  :  7  f.),  a  fermenting,  im- 
pelling power  {Berach.  liy  (p.  221  [^229]). 

Here  the  identification  of  the  dough  with  the  body,  in 
distinction  from  the  soul,  is  mistaken.  The  dualistic  psy- 
chology is  supijlied  by  Weber,  not  suggested  by  the  source. 
God's  judgment  upon  man  in  Gen.  8  :  21  is  likened  to  a 
baker's  condemnation  of  his  own  dough.  The  proverb  is 
found  also  in  Gen.  rah.  34  (Wiinsche,  p.  152)  as  a  saying  of 
R.  Ghija  the  Great  (Bacher,  Tan.^  II.  p.  530).  The  compari- 
son of  the  evil  impulse  with  leaven  is  an  entirely  distinct 
saying  which  should  not  be  connected  with  the  other.  But 
in  this  case  also  the  dough  is  man,  human  nature,  not  the 
body.  It  is  in  the  prayer  of  R.  Alexander  (Berach.  IT"): 
"It  is  revealed  and  known  before  thee  that  our  will  is  to 
do  thy  will.  And  what  hinders  ?  The  leaven  that  is  in  the 
dough  and  servitude  to  the  kingdoms.  May  it  be  thy  will  to 
deliver  us  from  their  hand."  ^ 

There  are  only  two  sentences,  so  far  as  I  have  discovered, 
in  which  Weber's  connection  of  the  >/e^er  with  the  body  is 
confirmed  by  the  text  which  he  cites.  In  these  cases,  how- 
ever, the  word  fllj  is  not  used  of  the  body  in  contrast  to  the 
soul,  and  Weber's  view  remains  without  proof. 

1  Taylor's  translation,  in  Sai/infjs  of  the  Jewish  Fathers,  2d  ed.  p.  128.  See  also 
Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  p.  196;  cf.  Tan.,  I.  p.  112. 


THE   YECER  HARA  105 

I 

The  passage  begins: 

"From  the  entrance  of  bodily  maturity  the  yeger  hara  de- 
serves the  name  of  a  strange  god  {^]  7J^)  in  the  body  of  man. 
Sabbath  1^5"." 

The  passage  gives  no  ground  for  the  words  "from  the 
entrance  of  bodily  maturity."  It  is  a  saying  of  R.  Abin's: 
"What  means  Ps.  81  :  10,  Let  there  be  in  thee  no  strange 
god  ?  What  is  the  strange  God  which  is  in  the  body  of  man 
(DIK  htl^  151JI2  ti^^S!^)^  I*  is  none  other  than  the  yeger 
hara.'''  The  passage  will  meet  us  again  in  its  connection. 
Anger  and  idolatry,  not  bodily  sins,  are  the  effects  of  the 
evil  yeger  which  are  discussed  in  the  context.  The  expres- 
sion 151 J2  is  nothing  but  a  paraphrase  of  the  "in  thee  "  (*7D) 
of  Ps.  81  :  10.1  So  Taylor  (p.  130)  translates  "in  a  man's 
body  (or  self),"  and  JjQvj  {Worterhuch)  "in  dem  innern  des 
Menschen."  Nothing  suggests  that  the  body  is  specified  in 
distinction  from  the  soul.  The  word  here  as  in  other  in- 
stances is  equivalent  to  "  person  "  or  "  self  "  (See  Levy  and 
Jastrow's  Dictionary),  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  next 
citation. 

Weber  proceeds :  — 

"  It  occasions  sins  in  the  body,  as  Exod.  rah.  15  says :  Sins 
spring  from  the  evil  impulse  which  is  in  their  body  (flljl)." 

The  passage  (Wiinsche,  p.  107)  sets  forth  various  points  of 
likeness  between  angels  and  Israel.  Among  them  is  this: 
"The  angels  renew  themselves  daily  and  return,  after  they 
have  praised  God,  to  the  stream  of  fire  out  of  which  they 
came  (Dan.  7  :  10),  and  God  renews  them  and  makes  them 
as  before  (Lam.  3  :  23  [cf.  Lam.  rah.  3  :  23]);  so  Israel 
smitten  with  sins  from  the  evil  yeger  which  is  in  their  body,^ 
if  they  turn  in  repentance  God  every  year  forgives  their  sins 

1  The  same  interpretation  of  Ps.  81  :  10  is  ascribed  to  R.  Jannai  in  Jer.  Neda- 
nm  41'>  (IX.  1),  where  the  expression  "  within  thee"  (ISTpJ)  takes  the  place 
of  1£3U3,  with  which  it  is  wholly  synonymous. 

2  |i3ij3  ty'iy  p^rt  ii'"'D  mji;r3  \yDPi^D. 


106  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

and  renews  their  heart  to  fear  him,  as  it  is  written  in  Ezek. 
36:26."  The  Old  Testament  citation  strikingly  illustrates 
the  remoteness  from  Hebrew  thought  of  the  idea  that  sin 
belongs  to  the  flesh  in  contrast  to  the  soul.  The  passage  be- 
fore us  does  not  prove  that  rabbinical  Judaism  had  at  this 
point  departed  from  its  traditional  mode  of  thought.  Even 
if  the  word  tll^  were  used  in  its  literal  sense,  these  rare  and 
late  occurrences  would  not  justify  Weber's  repeated  use  of  the 
phrase  "the  evil  impulse  of  the  body,"  and  the  dualistic  in- 
ferences which  he  draws  from  them.  But  it  is  altosrether 
probable  that  even  in  these  instances  the  translation  "  body  '* 
is  misleading.  1 

Weber  continues :  — 

"The  angels  are  free  from  it  [the  yeger  hara]  because  they 
do  not  carry  the  earthly  corporeity;  their  holiness  is  therefore 
only  single,  that  of  man  double,  because  gained  in  conflict  with 
evil  lusts  {Lev.  rab.  24)." 

Here  again  the  words  regarding  earthly  corporeity  are 
Weber's  own.  The  passage  says  only  that  the  evil  impulse 
is  "not  found  in  the  angels  (D^JVvPil,  "those  on  high"),  but 
it  rules  in  men  (D^JIDnnn,  "those  below  ").  Of  the  bear- 
ing of  this  passage  upon  the  doctrine  more  will  be  said 
below. 

Weber  is  inclined  throughout  his  discussion  of  the  two 
impulses  to  interpret  them  in  terms  of  a  dualistic  psychology, 
but  the  passages  which  he  cites  do  not  take  us  out  of  the 
ethical  region.  They  do  not  justify  his  definition  of  the  evil 
impulse  as  "  the  impulse  inherent  in  the  body  to  fulfil  bodily 
functions  which  are  directed  to  maintenance  and  propaga- 
tion "  (p.  204  [2  211]),  but  rather  support  the  simple  defini- 
tion of  Taylor  (p.  37) :  "  The  yeger  ra  is  the  evil  nature  or 
disposition  in  or  of  a  man ;  the  ye^er  toh  his  good  nature  or 
disposition."  It  is  difficult  to  excuse  Weber's  use  of  some 
of  the  passages  cited,  and  the  suggestion  of  caution  in  the 
use  of  his  book  is  one  that  should  be  enforced  before  we 

1  Cf.  Aboth,  4:10:  Whosoever  honors  the  law  is  himself  (ISU)  held  in  honor. 


THE    YECER  HARA  107 

leave  him.  The  vitally  important  question  of  the  nature, 
the  stages,  and  the  degree  of  Greek  influence  upon  the  con- 
ceptions of  the  Jewish  rabbis  is  one  that  cannot  be  answered 
by  the  help  of  one  who  is  so  inclined  to  put  Hebraic  ideas 
into  Greek  and  modern  forms  of  expression.  Nor  is  this  the 
only  point  at  which  this  book,  so  often  used  as  if  it  were 
equivalent  to  the  sources  of  rabbinical  theology,  needs  to  be 
controlled  by  reference  to  the  sources  themselves. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  Weber  wrote  with  an  apologetic 
aim,  and  wished  to  set  Jewish  views  over  against  Christian 
in  an  unfavorable,  though  unexpressed,  contrast.  This  may 
explain  his  tendency  to  put  the  teaching  of  passages  in  lan- 
guage which  the  passage  itself  does  not  suggest.  It  is 
furthermore  a  serious  fault  of  method  that  he  does  not  cite 
the  authors  of  the  sayings  by  name,  and  so  fails  to  give  us 
light  on  the  relative  age  of  different  opinions,  and  that  he 
seldom  informs  us  whether  the  opinion  cited  was  contro- 
verted by  others,  and  what  opinion,  if  any,  prevailed.  With 
all  its  undoubted  learning  and  great  value  the  book  must 
be  said  to  be  deficient  in  accuracy,  and  its  method  not  well 
adjusted  to  the  nature  of  its  sources. 


108  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


m 

THE  RABBINICAL  CONCEPTION 

In  order  to  understand  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  the  yeger  we 
must  remember  that  it  is  not  at  all  a  speculative  but  wholly 
an  exegetical  product.  It  rests  for  its  origin  upon  Genesis 
6:5;  8  :  21  (J.).  "  Yahve  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man 
was  great  upon  the  earth  and  that  every  yeger  of  the  thoughts 

of  his  heart  was  only  evil  every  day"  (ID?  nDti'llD  1^^''7D1 
DViT/^  )^"1  p"1) ;  "the  yeger  of  the  heart  of  man  is  evil  from 
his  youth."  The  first  of  these  verses  gives  the  ground  of 
God's  resolve  to  destroy  man;  the  second,  the  ground  of  his 
decision,  after  the  flood,  not  to  curse  the  ground  and  smite 
the  living  again.  So  that  we  meet  already  the  suggestion 
that  the  "evil  yeger  (of  the  thoughts)  of  the  heart  of  man" 
is  in  part,  or  in  one  aspect,  his  fault  and  in  part  his  misfor- 
tune ;  that  the  evil  yeger  lies  on  the  borderland  between  the 
choice  and  the  nature  of  man.  This  prepares  us  to  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  in  later  discussions  of  the  yeger  the  ques- 
tion at  issue  is  not  the  speculative  question  of  the  relation 
of  body  and  soul  to  the  fact  of  sin,  but  the  religious  question 
of  the  relation  of  God  and  man  to  sin,  and  the  practical 
question  of  the  way  of  escape  and  victory. 

It  is  never  doubted  that  God  made  the  evil  yeger^  yet  man 
is  responsible  for  controlling  and  subduing  it.  The  word 
itself  suggested  these  two  apparently  contrary  conceptions. 
The  verb  "IV*  means  to  form,  or  fashion,  and  also,  to  form 
inwardly,  to  plan.  It  was  used  as  the  technical  word  for  the 
potter's  work.  It  was  frequently  used  of  God's  forming  of 
nature  and  of  man,  and  also  of  his  planning  or  purposing. 
The  "IV*  of  man  could  therefore  suggest  either  his  form,  as 


THE.  YECER  HARA  109 

God  made  him,  his  nature  (so  Ps.  103  :  14),  or  his  own 
formation  of  thought  and  purpose,  "  imagination  "  as  tlie  word 
is  rendered  in  several  Old  Testament  passages  (Gen.  6:5; 
8  :  21;  Dent.  31  :  21;  Isa.  26  :  3;  1  Chr.  28  :  9;  29  :  18). 
In  Deuteronomy  31  :  21,  and  probably  Isaiah  26  :  3,  the  word 
is  used  without  the  further  definition,  "of  the  thoughts,"  "of 
the  heart,"  which  First  Chronicles  retains.  The  word  had 
gained  therefore,  already  in  the  Old  Testament,  a  certain  in- 
dependence as  meaning  the  nature  or  disposition  of  man,  and 
this  could  be  regarded  as  something  which  God  made  (Ps.  103: 
14),  or  as  something  which  man  works  (Deut.  31  :  21). 

It  is  evident  that  the  word  was  fitted  by  Old  Testament 
use  for  further  development  in  discussions  of  the  origin  of 
sin,  and  the  responsibility  of  man.  This  develojDment  by 
the  rabbis  was  carried  forward  by  exegetical  processes, 
through  which  many  texts  besides  those  in  which  the  word 
occurs  were  brought  to  bear  upon  the  doctrine.  In  some 
cases  the  explanation  of  a  difficult  text  was  found  in  some 
characteristic  of  the  yecer^  and  in  other  cases  difficult  facts 
of  experience  with  reference  to  the  evil  power  of  the  yeger  in 
man  were  explained  by  appealing  to  some  enlightening  text. 

The  fundamental  passages  pronounce  the  yeger  of  man's 
heart  evil,  and  it  is  with  the  evil  impulse  that  the  rabbis 
chiefly  deal.  The  good  impulse  is  rarely  spoken  of,  and 
probably  cannot  be  traced  so  far  back,  and  yeger  frequently 
stands  unmodified  and  always  in  the  evil  sense.  This  in 
itself  suggests  the  error  of  connecting  the  evil  yeger  with  the 
body,  the  good  with  the  soul,  making  them  expressions  of 
the  character  of  two  equally  essential  parts  of  man.  Rather 
it  is  the  nature  of  man  as  a  whole  that  is  in  mind,  and  in  it  "** 
the  evil  tendency,  or  disposition,  dominates. 

Without  attempting  completeness,  I  wish  to  state  the  teach- 
ings of  the  rabbis  about  the  yeger  somewhat  fully  in  their 
own  words.  1     It  should  be  remembered  that  we  have  to  do 

^  Some  of  the  passages  in  which  a  number  of  sa3'ings  regarding  the  ye^er 
are  collected  are  Berach.  60-61,  Succa  5]''-52%  Kiddushin  30*,  81,  Baba  Bathra 
16»,  Yoma  69''-70'',  Sanhed.  20%  Gen.  rah.  22,  34. 

Taylor  cites  many  passages,  and  makes  interesting  suggestions  as  to  New 


110  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

with  a  variety  of  individual  opinions,  and  with  the  views  of 
rabbis  of  earlier  and  later  times  during  a  period  of  several 
centuries ;  ^  and  also  with  a  great  mass  of  anonymous  and 
pseudonymous  sayings;  so  that  an  elaborate  rabbinical  doc- 
trine is  not  to  be  looked  for,  but  rather  a  rabbinical  way  of 
thinking  on  this  subject. 

1.    The  Seat  of  the   Good  and  Evil  Impulses 

The  seat  of  the  good  and  evil  impulses  alike  is  neither 
body  nor  soul  in  distinction  from  each  other,  but  rather,  as 
Genesis  6  :  5 ;  8  :  21  suggest,  the  heart,  —  not,  of  course, 
the  physical  organ,  but  the  thinking  and  willing  subject, 
the  moral  person,  the  inner  self.  The  close  association  of 
the  yeger  with  the  heart  is  as  abundantly  attested  as  its 
connection  with  the  body  is  meagerly.  Heart  is  even  used 
in  the  sense  of  yeger^  as  in  Gen.  rah.  67  (WUnsche,  p.  324), 
where  Genesis  27  :  41  "Esau  spoke  in  his  heart^^  is  inter- 
preted thus:  The  wicked  are  in  the  power  of  their  heart, 
as  in  Psalm  14  :  1,  "The  fool  speaks  in  his  heart,"  and  here 
"  Esau  spoke  in  his  heart " ;  also  Jeroboam  (1  Kings  12  :  26) 
and  Haman  (Esther  7:6).  But  the  righteous  have  their 
heart  in  their  power,  as  Hannah  (1  Sam.  1  :  13),  David 
(27  :  1)  and  Daniel  (Dan.  1  :  8).2  Often  the  word  heart  in 
an  Old  Testament  verse  is  interpreted  of  the  yeger,  and  since 
the  word  heart  occurs  in  the  two  forms  ^y  ^.nd  ^^'7,  the 
rabbis  were  not  slow  to  see  in  the  double  beth  a  hint  of  the 
two  impulses,  and  in  the  single  beth  of  the  one.  Here 
belongs  the  ancient  interpretation  of  the  phrase  "with  all 
thy  heart"  (TDDv'/DD)  in  Deuteronomy  6  :  5.     The  two 

Testament  parallels.  See  his  Sayings,  2d  ed.,  pp.  37,  63  f.,  70,  77,  82,  98,  140, 
147-152,  and  cf.  128-130,  186-192. 

1  On  the  rabbinical  method  of  interpretation  see,  e.  g.,  Mielziner,  Introduction 
to  the  Talmud,  Cincinnati,  1894  ;  for  the  names  and  dates  of  famous  scril)cs,  also 
Schiirer,  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  §  2.5  IV. ;  Strack,  Einleitung  in  den  Thalmttd, 
2d  ed.,  1894,  eh.  VI.;  and  Bacher,  cited  above. 

2  That  is,  the  wicked  speaks  in  his  heart  (13*73),  the  righteous  speaks  unto 
or  against  his  heart  {^2^  hj^i  or  "^x)- 


THE   YECER  HARA  111 

heths  indicate  the  two  impulses,  and  the  meaning  is  that  we 
are  to  love  God  with  our  two  yegarim,,  with  the  yeger  toh  and 
with  the  yeger  ra  (^Sifrt  and  Mishna  Berach.  IX.  5). 

Psalm  109  :  22  "my  heart  ("^^v)  is  wounded  within  me  "  is 
interpreted  to  mean  that  his  evil  yeger  has  been  wounded,  or 
slain ;  hence  David  is  to  be  reckoned  with  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob  over  whom  the  evil  yeger  had  no  power  {Baha 
bathra,  16  *).  The  same  interpretation  of  this  verse  is  found 
in  a  saying  of  Jose  the  Galilean  (Bacher,  Taw.,  I.  p.  368). 
Deuteronomy  6  :  6  is  interpreted  in  Sifre :  Let  these  words 
be  against  thy  heart  (*1D^  /  7^),  that  is  against  thy  yeger. 
Psalm  86  :  11  "unite  my  heart  C^^^*?)  to  fear  thy  name" 
means  unite  the  evil  to  the  good  impulse  that  it  may  be  con- 
trolled (R.  Isaac,  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  289).  "The  northern," 
or  "the  hidden"  in  Joel  2  :  20  is  the  yeger  hara  which  is 
hidden  (pQV)  and  stands  in  the  heart  of  man  (H7D  IDipi 
Dnj<  /^)  (^Sucea  52*).  Rab  said:  The  evil  yeger  is  like 
a  fly  and  sits  between  the  two  openings  of  the  heart,  as  it 
says  in  Ecclesiastes  10  :  1  {Berach.,  61*).  "These  my  words 
shall  ye  take  to  your  heart"  (Dent.  11  :  18),  i.  e.,  the  law  is 
balm  for  the  wound  of  the  evil  yeger  {Kiddushin,  30^). 

2.    The  Nature  of  the  Evil  Impulse 

The  question  next  arises,  what  sins  are  ascribed  to  the 
yeger?  If  it  is  the  yeger  of  the  heart  we  should  expect  all 
sins  of  the  heart,  i.  e.,  all  sins,  to  be  attributed  to  it.  No 
doubt  sensual  sins  are  with  special  emphasis  ascribed  to  the 
yeger,  but  this  appears  to  be  not  because  these  are  sins  of 
the  body,  but  because  they  are  conspicuous  among  the  sins 
that  come  upon  man  and  overmaster  him  as  if  by  an  outside 
force.  Passion  is  often  an  accurate  translation  for  yeger  in 
this  connection.  As  such  a  power  from  without,  in  the  form 
of  lust,  the  evil  yeger  can  momentarily  master  even  the  best 
of  men.  R.  Akiba  mocked  at  those  who  could  not  withstand 
the  yeger,  but  he  was  saved  from  falling  before  the  tempter 
in  the  form  of  a  woman  only  by  heavenly  intercession.     Of 


112  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

R.  Meir  a  similar  story  is  told  (^KiddusMn,  81*).  "The  ten- 
dency of  these  legends  is  to  show  that  the  greatest  moral 
strength  without  divine  protection  is  not  enough  to  keep  one 
from  the  assaults  of  passion  "  (Bacher,  Tan.,  I.  p.  284). 

A  long  collection  of  sayings  about  the  7/ecer  (^Succa,  51^- 
62'')  is  occasioned  by  the  Mishnic  rule  that  at  the  celebration 
of  the  festival  the  women  should  sit  in  the  gallery,  the  men 
below.  Rab  justifies  the  rule  by  appealing  to  Zechariah 
12  :  12.  If  even  in  mourning,  when  the  evil  yeger  has  no 
power,  it  says,  "the  men  apart  and  the  women  apart,"  how 
much  more  in  festal  times,  when  the  evil  yeger  has  power. 

In  the  saying  of  R.  Jehoshua  (^Ahoth,  2  :  15,  Taylor's  Say- 
ings), "An  evil  eye,  and  the  evil  yege7\  and  hatred  of  the 
creatures  put  a  man  out  of  the  world,"  the  yeger  as  passion 
seems  to  be  coordinated  with  greed  and  hatred  of  men.^  It 
is  not  necessary,  however,  even  here,  to  limit  it  to  sensual 
passion.  See  further  the  interpretation  of  Isaiah  3  :  16  in 
Sahhath  62'>  (Bacher,  Amor.  III.  720). 

Lust  is  certainly  by  no  means  the  only  manifestation  of 
the  evil  yeger  in  men.  R.  Josia  interprets  Deuteronomy  6  :  6 
thus:  Let  these  words  be  for  an  oath  against  thy  heart,  i.  e., 
thy  yeger.  Man  is  to  expel  his  yeger  by  an  oath,^  (adjure  it, 
or  bind  himself  to  war  against  it),  as  did  Abraham  (Gen. 
14  :  22  f.),  Boaz  (Ruth  3  :  13),  David  (1  Sam.  26  :  10)  and 
Elisha  (2  Kings,  5  :  16);  while  the  wicked  by  an  oath 
strengthen  their  evil  yeger,  as  did  Gehazi  (2  Kings  5  :  20). ^ 
In  these  examples  revenge  and  avarice  appear  by  the  side  of 
lust  as  deeds  of  the  yeger.  Jose  b.  Chalaftha  said:  Three 
men  fortified  themselves  by  an  oath  against  the  yeger :  Joseph 
(Gen.  39  :  9),  David  (1  Sam.  26  :  10)  and  Boaz  (Ruth  3  :  13) 
to  whom  Proverbs  24  :  5  applies.* 

1  Compare  the  similar  saying  in  4  :  30 :  jealousy  and  lust  (nixnn)  ^^^ 
ambition  put  a  man  out  of  the  world.    And  see  First  John,  2:16. 

«  Si/re,  Deut.  6  :  6,  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  360. 

*  Lev.  rab.,  23  ;  Wunsche,  p.  158  ;  Ruth  rah.,  3 :  13.  A  similar  view  as  to  David 
is  ascribed  to  II.  Jochanan  ;  as  to  Boaz  to  R.  Judan  and  R.  Chanina.  See 
Bacher,  Amor.  III.  237,  249,  705. 


THE    YECER   HARA  113 

Anger  is  especially  ascribed  to  the  i/e^er  in  an  interesting 
saying  in  Sabbath  105''.  It  is  part  of  a  discussion  of  the 
Mishnic  rule  regarding  the  rending  of  one's  clothes  (when 
this  is  commanded  or  allowed).  The  question  has  come  up 
whether  this  is  sometimes  justifiable  in  order  to  calm  "the 
spirit  of  one's  yeger.''''^  It  is  reported  that  Jochanan  b.  Nuri 
said:  Let  one  who  in  anger  tears  his  garments,  breaks 
vessels,  casts  away  money,  be  in  thine  eyes  as  one  who  prac- 
tises idolatry.  For  this  is  the  craft  of  the  yeger  hara  ;  to-day 
it  says  to  him  do  this,  to-morrow  do  that,  till  it  says  to  him, 
Go  practise  idolatry;  and  he  goes  and  does  it.  R.  Abin 
said,  What  says  Psalm  81  :  10  (i.  e.,  How  does  this  passage 
prove  this?).  There  shall  be  in  thee  no  strange  God,  etc? 
What  is  the  strange  god  which  is  within  [liDIJl^]  man?  It 
is  the  evil  yeger.  It  (tearing  one's  clothes)  is  allowed,  how- 
ever, when  it  is  meant  to  compel  the  respect  of  one's  servants. 
So  R.  Juda  pulled  the  threads  of  his  garment,  R.  Acha  b. 
Jacob  shattered  broken  vessels,  etc.  In  Aboth  di  R.  Nathan 
26,  Jochanan's  saying  is  ascribed  to  R.  Akiba  (Bacher,  Tan.^ 
I.  284);  and  in  Jer.  Nedarim,,  41^  R.  Jannai  is  quoted  as 
saying :  One  who  obeys  his  yeger  practises  as  it  were  idolatry. 
"Let  there  be  no  strange  God  within  thee,"  Psalm  81  :  10, 
i.  e.,  make  not  the  stranger  within  thee  ('^^"Ip^tJ^  If)  to  be 
ruler  over  thee  (Bacher,  Amor..,  I.  38). 

From  a  rabbi  of  the  same  period,  b.  Zoma,  comes  the  say- 
ing in  Aboth.,  4:2:  Who  is  mighty?  He  that  subdues  his 
yeger  ("IIV^  HJ^  t^'^IDn,  Taylor,  nature);  for  it  is  said,  He 
that  is  slow  to  anger  is  better  than  the  mighty ;  and  he  that 
ruleth  his  spirit  (")ni"lD  /J^ID)  than  he  that  taketh  a  city 
(Prov.  16  :  32).  The  saying  was  probably  applied  not  to 
anger  alone,  but  to  the  inner  power  of  sin  in  general.  In 
the  sense  of  anger  it  was  even  possible  to  speak  of  God's 
yeger.,  and  say:  This  is  his  strength,  that  he  suppresses  his 
yeger.,  and  grants  forbearance. ^ 

2  Yoma,  69\  reading  12?''  in  the  place  of  L)p2.  See  Rabbinovicz  Variae  Lee- 
times,  IV.  202. 


114  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

[  It  is  not  only  bodily  appetites  and  the  more  violent  pas- 
v^  sions  that  are  ascribed  to  the  ye^er^  but  all  other  sins  as  well. 
I  When  the  evil  yeger  sees  a  conceited  man  it  says,  He  is 
mine;  as  Proverbs  26  :  12  says,  The  fool  (evil  yeger)  has 
hope  of  hira.i  It  is  the  evil  yeger  that  makes  Jews  object,  as 
heathen  do,  to  the  irrational  precepts  of  the  law,  such  as  the 
prohibition  of  swine's  flesh,  of  wearing  goods  of  linen  and 
wool  mixed,  the  scape  goat,  the  red  cow.'-^  The  yeger  may 
cause  disbelief  in  the  judgment  after  death:  Let  not  thy 
yeger  assure  thee  that  Sheol  is  a  house  of  refuge ;  for  perforce 
wast  thou  framed  and  born,  perforce  dost  thou  live  and  die, 
and  perforce  thou  art  to  give  account  and  reckoning  (Aboth, 
4  :  32). 

Idolatry  would  have  been  the  chief  work  of  the  yeger  if  it 
had  been  a  current  sin.  It  was  sometimes  said  that  God 
created  two  yegarim  in  his  world,  the  yeger  of  idolatry  and 
the  yeger  of  unchastity,^  but  the  former  had  long  ago  been 
rooted  out  of  Israel. 

But  is  it  only  sin  of  which  the  evil  yeger  is  a  cause?  Is  it 
altogether  evil  ?  In  explanation  of  the  words,  And  behold  it 
was  very  good  (Gen.  1  :  31),  R.  Samuel  b.  Nachman  refers 
"behold"  to  the  good  yeger ^  ''''and  behold"  to  the  evil.  Is 
the  evil  yeger  then  very  good  ?  Certainly,  for  without  it  man 
would  not  build  a  house,  nor  marry  nor  beget  children  nor 
engage  in  trade,  as  it  says  (Eccles.  4  :  4),  Then  I  saw  all 
labor  and  every  skilful  work,  that  it  is  the  zeal  (rivalry)  of 
one  against  another.*  This  passage  does  not  justify  the 
definition  which  "Weber  bases  in  part  upon  it,  that  the  evil 
yeger  is  "the  impulse  innate  in  the  body  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  bodily  functions,  directed  to  maintenance  and 
propagation  "  (p.  204  [^  211]),  for  the  scripture  appealed  to, 

1  R.  Ammi,  in  Gen.  rah.,  22,  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  156. 

2  Tannaitic  tradition,  Sifre  86»;  Yoma,&l^;  Bacher,  Jan.,  I.  42;  cf.  Amor., 
II.  317. 

^  rril  mi3;?  'ly  ^"<i  nui  ^X'-  Cant.  rah.  7  :  8.  See  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  541 ; 
Amor.,  ni.  212,  694;  also  Yoma,  eg**,  cited  below. 

*  Gen.  rah.,  9 ;  Eccles.  rah.,  3:11;  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  487  f. 


THE    YECER  HARA  115 

perhaps  the  source  as  well  as  the  proof  of  the  saying,  does 
not  refer  to  bodily  functions.  The  thought  seems  rather  to 
be  that  a  certain  self-seeking,  the  impulse  not  only  to  sensual 
pleasure,  but  also  to  gain  and  power,  evil  though  it  may 
easily  become,  is  essential  to  the  continuance  of  the  world  as 
it  is.  This  is  an  attempt  to  justify  God  (see  further  below), 
with  which  not  all  would  agree.  The  usual  view  was  that 
the  ye^er  was  good  only  to  be  subdued,  and  that  the  best 
men  were  without  it,  or  free  from  its  rule.  There  is  indeed 
a  sense  in  which  it  is  essential  to  the  present  world  order, 
but  this  rests  not  upon  the  material  nature  of  the  present 
world,  but  upon  the  place  of  the  passions  in  human  life. 

The  evil  yeger  belongs  to  men  and  not  to  angels,  to  this 
world  and  not  to  the  world  to  come.  We  read  of  "the 
higher  beings  in  whom  the  evil  yeger  does  not  rule."  ^  Why 
does  death  come  upon  the  righteous?  Because  as  long  as 
they  live  they  have  to  fight  with  the  evil  yeger,  but  when 
they  have  died  they  have  rest,  Job  3  :  17  {Gen.  rah.  9). 
Abraham  said  to  the  angels  (Gen.  18  :  5),  Comfort  ye  your 
heart  (□^^'7  not  Q^^D^)'  hence,  said  R.  Acha,  it  is  known 
that  in  angels  the  evil  yeger  does  not  rule.  R.  Chija  adds. 
Psalm  48  :  14,  Set  your  heart  [DDD?]  to  her  bulwarks;  from 
which  we  see  that  in  the  world  to  come  the  evil  yeger  will 
not  rule  {Gen.  rah..,  48).  But  this  is  not  because  that  world 
is  incorporeal.  It  is  true  that  the  command.  Be  fruitful  and 
multiply  (Gen.  1  :  28)  is  for  this  world  only,  and  that  angels 
do  not  marry  (cf.  Enoch  15  :  3-7;  Mark  12  :  25,  etc.);  but 
it  is  not  exclusively  bodily  functions  that  mark  the  differ- 
ence. "  It  was  a  commonplace  in  the  mouth  of  Rab.  that  in 
the  world  to  come  there  is  neither  eating,  nor  drinking,  nor 
procreation,  nor  barter,  nor  envy,  nor  hatred,  nor  strife  " 
(Berach.,  17";  Taylor,  p.  60).  Moses  argues  that  the  law  is 
needed  on  earth,  not  in  heaven,  for  this  among  other  reasons: 
The  law  says,  thou  shalt  not  kill;  thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery;    thou  shalt  not  steal;    is  there  then  envy  among 

1  Lev.  rab.,  26  ;  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  419. 


116  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

you,  is  there  an  evil  yeger  among  you?  (^Sahhath  89*).^ 
Nowhere  do  the  rabbis  say  what  Philo  says  so  emphatically 
that  it  is  the  absence  of  the  bodily  nature  that  makes  the 
difference  between  the  angelic  and  the  human  realms. 

The  rabbinical  discussions  in  regard  to  the  presence  of  the 
evil  yeger  in  children  and  animals  prove  still  further  that 
tlie  yeger  belongs  to  the  moral,  not  to  the  physical  nature. 
The  Jews  did  not  see  in  children  types  of  virtue.  The  yeger 
was  evil  from  man's  youth  (Gen.  8  :  21).  We  have  already 
reported  the  discussion  as  to  whether  the  ycger  entered  man 
before  or  at  birth. ^  Reuben  b.  Aristobulus  says:  The  evil 
yeger  in  man  arises  at  the  moment  of  conception  and  lurks 
continually  at  the  door  of  the  heart  (Gen.  4:7).  When  a 
child  in  the  cradle  puts  his  hand  on  a  serpent  and  is  bitten, 
or  on  coals  and  is  burned,  it  is  the  evil  yeger  already  ruling 
in  the  child  which  prevents  caution  before  what  is  harmful ; 
and  when  a  lamb  or  kid  at  sight  of  a  pit  avoids  it,  that  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  in  animals  there  rules  no  evil  impulse.^ 
Uccles.  rab.  4:13;  9:15  holds  that  the  good  yeger  does  not 
arise  in  man  until  the  thirteenth  year,  and  is  therefore  thir- 
teen years  younger  than  the  evil  yeger.  It  is  therefore 
exceptional  when  in  Tanch.^  Gen.  3  :  22,  it  is  said  that  a  child 
knows  nothing  of  sin  until  it  is  nine  years  old;  and  then  the 
evil  impulse  awakens  (Hamburger). 

If  bodily  functions  are  the  sphere  of  the  activity  of  the 
yeger^  it  must  be  present  in  animals,  constituting  though  not 
man's  brute  inheritance  yet  the  brute  side  of  his  nature. 
Yet,  as  we  have  just  seen,  one  rabln  denies  that  the  yeger 
rules  in  animals.  Another,  cited  above  p.  (101),  decides  that 
the  yeger  is  in  animals,  not,  however,  because  of  their  cor- 
porealness,  but  because  they  kick  and  bite,  giving  evidence 
of  a  bad  disposition  (^Berach.^  60^). 

^  R.  Levi  said  (Lev.  rah.,  26  ;  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  419):  The  upper  beings,  in 
whom  the  evil  //efer  does  not  rule,  need  only  a  single  command  (loxo.  ^^t^- 
4  :  14  [17])  ;  the  lower  beings  have  never  enough  even  of  repeated  commands 
(-\r3K'1,  Lev.  21  :1). 

•■^  Gen.  rah.,  34;   Sanh.,  91''. 

8  Ahoth  di  R.  Nathan,  16 ;  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  384.     See  also  Amor.,  II.  141,  n.  L 


THE    YECER   HARA  117 


3.    The  Origin  of  the  Evil  Yeger 

God  is  always  regarded  as  the  creator  of  the  evil  yeger. 
This  appears  to  be  the  most  radical  departure  from  the  basal 
texts,  Genesis  6:5;  8  :  21,  in  which  the  yeger  seems  to  be 
a  man's  own  shaping  of  his  thoughts  or  character.  Yet  the 
second  of  these  texts  suggests  a  certain  innateness  of  the 
yeger^  and  the  belief  that  God  made  it  agrees  with  the  Old 
Testament  and  Jewish  view,  which  was  opposed  to  a  radical 
dualism.  We  have  already  met  (p.  101)  Nachman  b.  Chisda's 
interpretation  of  the  two  yods  in  "Tk*^^1  (Gen.  2  :  7),  "God 
created  man  with  two  yegarim,  the  good  and  the  evil" 
{Berach.^  61^).  Also  that  of  Simeon  b.  Pazzi  which  follows, 
and  seems  to  be  preferred :  "  Woe  is  me  for  my  creator. 
Woe  is  me  for  my  yeger.''''  ^  According  to  this  the  two  yods 
mean  two  woes  (^1),  one  for  the  yoger^  one  for  the  yeger.  The 
God  who  made  and  will  judge  man  and  the  evil  impulse  that 
leads  him  to  sin  are  his  two  fears.  Only  in  Nachman's  inter- 
pretation therefore  is  Genesis  2  :  7  cited  to  prove  that  God 
created  the  evil  yeger.  It  is,  however,  elsewhere  stated,  and 
not,  so  far  as  I  know,  disputed.  See  the  comment  on  Genesis 
1  :  31,  cited  above  (p.  114),  and  that  on  Genesis  6  :  6  (p.  103). 
The  rabbis  did  not  grapple  in  a  fundamental,  philosophical 
way  with  the  difficulty  involved  in  the  goodness  of  God  and 
the  evil  disposition  of  man  as  God  made  him.  God  pro- 
nounced all  good  (Gen.  1  :  31),  yet  called  the  yeger  of  man's 
heart  evil  (6:5;  8  :  21),  and  repented  that  he  had  made 
man,  or  that  he  had  so  made  him.  Starts  toward  various 
theoretical  solutions  of  the  problem  are  made  by  different 
rabbis,  without  agreement  or  consistency.  We  cannot  indeed 
blame  them  for  not  solving  a  problem  which  no  one  has  solved, 
but  their  discussions  of  it  often  seem  more  like  play  than  like 
serious  and  worthy  labor.  The  simplest  way  of  escape  from 
the  difficulty  lay  in  the  conception  of  the  good  yeger.  This  is 
opposed  to  the  suggestion  of  Genesis  6:5;  8  :  21,  and  indeed 

1  Found  also  in  Erubin,  18%  in  the  reverse  order. 


y 


118  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

most  of  the  discussions  of  the  yeger  take  no  account  of  it. 
The  doctrine  that  God  made  man  with  both  good  and  evil 
instincts  and  dispositions,  and  that  it  is  man,  not  God,  who 
made  the  evil  prevail  is  sometimes  expressed,  though  it  cannot 
be  the  original  form  of  the  doctrine,  and  never  appears  to 
be  accepted  as  a  sufficient  account  of  man's  moral  condition. 
The  interpretation  which  found  the  two  impulses  in  the  two 
yods  in  ")^^n,  Genesis  2  :  7,  gave  way  to  one  in  which  the 
yeger,  simply  as  evil,  was  contrasted  with  God.  The  idea  that 
man  is  to  bless  God  with  the  evil  yeger  as  well  as  with  the 
good  {Berach.,  IX.  5)  indicates  that  the  problem  of  the  evil 
yeger  was  not  solved  by  the  supposition  of  the  good.  The  evil 
yeger  must  itself  be  explained  and  justified. 

The  Jews  never  regarded  the  idea  that  the  yeger  became 
evil  solely  through  man's  sin  as  adequate.  It  does  not  appear 
that  its  rise  was  traced  to  Adam's  sin.  It  must  rather  have 
exjilained  his  sin.  Hamburger  cites,  indeed,  from  a  late 
source  (Tanch.,  Gen.  3  :  22)  this  answer  to  the  question: 
God  calls  the  yeger  evil  (Gen.  8  :  21),  who  can  make  it  good  ? 
God  did  not  make  the  yeger  evil  but  only  man,  and  since  man 
made  it  evil  it  is  in  his  power  to  make  it  good.  But  it  was 
not  the  origin  but  the  undue  power  and  persistence  of  the 
evil  yeger  that  was  generally  ascribed  to  the  fault  of  men. 
Thus  its  continuance  in  Israel  even  after  the  giving  of  the 
Law  is  due  to  Israel's  want  of  religious  courage  or  faith. 
According  to  R.  Juda,  when  the  Israelites  heard  the  first 
word  of  the  Decalogue,  I  am  Yahwe,  thy  God,  they  received 
an  inner  knowledge  of  the  law,  but  lost  it  when  they  asked 
Moses  to  mediate  between  them  and  God.  It  cannot  be  re- 
stored now  but  will  be  hereafter  (Jer.  31  :  32).  R.  Nehemiah 
added,  When  the  Israelites  heard  the  second  word.  Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  beside  me,  the  evil  yeger  was  rooted  out  of 
their  heart;  but  when  they  begged  Moses  to  be  a  mediator, 
the  evil  yeger  returned  to  its  place,  not  to  be  removed  now 
but  only  hereafter  (Ezek.  36  :  26). ^  R.  Meir  interpreted 
Canticles  2  :  4  (Cant,  rah.)  thus:  Israel  said,  By  wine  the  evil 

1  Canticles  rab.,  1:2;  Bacher,  Tan.,  11.  273. 


THE   YECER   HARA  119 

yeger  overmastered  me ;  then  I  called  the  calf  my  god  (Ex. 
32  :  4). 

Man  is,  however,  not  only  responsible  for  making  the 
yeger  more  evil  by  submission  to  its  power;  he  is  also  capable 
of  putting  it  to  good  uses.  Here  we  meet  another  theory  of 
the  origin  of  the  yeger  which  has  been  already  hinted  at  in 
the  saying  that  men  are  to  bless  God  with  their  evil  yeger 
as  well  as  with  the  good.  The  evil  yeger  is  in  some  sense 
good,  or  necessary  to  the  existence  of  this  world.  God  pro- 
nounced it  very  good,  for  without  it  men  would  not  build,  or 
marry,  or  trade  (see  above,  p.  114).  "  The  yeger^  the  child, 
and  the  woman,  the  left  hand  shall  reject  while  the  right 
hand  draws  them  near,"  said  Simon  b.  Eleazar.^  Other  say- 
ings in  which  the  possibility  of  turning  the  yeger  to  good 
account  is  recognized  are  cited  below  (p.  125). 

It  is  perhaps  worth  while  to  give  with  fulness  the  legend 
which  explains  the  continuance  of  the  yeger  under  the  second 
temple  as  due  no  longer  to  Israel's  fault,  but  to  the  neces- 
sities of  this  world.  It  is  found  in  Yoma  69^  and  in  part  in 
Sank.  64*. 

In  Nehemiah  9  :  4  it  says,  And  they  cried  with  a  loud  voice 
to  the  Lord  their  God.  What  did  they  say  ?  Rab  [Sank.  R. 
Juda],  or  as  others  say  R.  Jonathan  said:  They  cried.  Woe, 
woe  (N^^D  ?^^0),  it  is  he  that  destroyed  the  sanctuary, 
burned  the  temple,  killed  the  righteous,  drove  the  Israelites 
out  of  their  land,  and  still  dances  among  us.  Why  hast 
thou  given  him  to  us?  Only  that  we  may  receive  reward 
(i.  e.,  for  conquering  him).  We  wish  him  not  and  we  wish 
not  the  reward.  Then  there  fell  a  leaf  on  which  stood  — 
Truth  (nD?^).  From  this,  according  to  R.  Chanina,  it  is 
proved  that  the  seal  of  the  Holy  One  is  Truth. ^  They  fasted 
three  days  and  three  nights;  then  he  was  delivered  up  to 
them.  He  came  forth  like  a  fiery  lion  out  of  the  holy  of 
holies.  Then  spake  the  prophet  to  the  Israelites:  This  is 
the  yeger  of  idolatry,  for  it  is  written,  Zech.  5  :  8,  And  he 

1  Sota,  47 »;  Sank.,  107";  Bacher,  Tan.,U.  427. 

2  On  this  saying  see  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  8  n.  3. 


120  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

said,  This  is  Wickedness  (tl^t^in).  When  they  seized 
him  a  hair  went  out  of  him  and  he  lifted  up  his  voice  and 
it  went  400  parasangs.  Then  they  said,  What  shall  we  do 
that  there  may  be  no  more  pity  for  him  in  heaven?  The 
prophet  said:  Shut  him  up  in  a  leaden  vessel  and  stop  its 
mouth  with  lead,  for  lead  does  not  let  the  sound  through, 
as  it  is  written,  This  is  Wickedness,  and  he  cast  her  into  the 
Epha,  and  cast  the  weight  of  lead  upon  the  mouth  thereof. 
Then  they  said,  Since  this  is  a  favorable  time  we  will  pray 
also  against  the  i/eper  of  sin.^  They  prayed  and  it  was  de- 
livered up  to  them.  Then  said  he  (the  prophet),  Take 
heed,  for  if  you  slay  this  one  the  world  will  cease.  They 
bound  him  three  days,  and  when  they  searched  for  a  fresh 
egg  in  all  the  land  of  Israel  they  found  none.  Then  they 
said,  What  shall  we  do?  If  we  kill  him  the  world  will 
cease.  If  we  pray  that  only  a  half  be  left  us,  halves  are  not 
kept  in  heaven.  Then  they  covered  his  eyes  with  eye-paint 
[or  put  his  eyes  out],  and  let  him  go ;  and  that  was  at  least 
of  this  much  good  to  them,  that  he  did  not  inflame  men 
against  their  blood  relations. 

The  meaning  of  this  legend  appears  to  be  that  the  Israelites 
from  the  time  of  the  second  temple  were  free  from  the  temp- 
tation to  idolatry,  and  from  the  grosser  forms  of  unchastity, 
though  the  i/eper  of  sexual  passion  cannot  be  altogether 
destroyed  lest  the  world  come  to  an  end. 

Over  against  this  theory,  if  it  can  be  called  such,  that  the 
yeger  is  good,  or  at  least  indispensable  to  the  existence  of 
the  world,  as  God  made  it,  and  becomes  evil  by  man's  fault, 
we  meet  a  different  view,  according  to  which  God  regrets 
having  made  it.  R.  Ibo's  interpretation  of  Gen.  6  :  6  has 
already  been  cited  (p.  10-3).  Our  rabbis  taught.  It  stands 
ill  with  the  evil  i/eger,  since  even  its  creator  calls  it  evil 
(Gen.  6:5;  Kiddush.,  30**).  Woe  to  the  dough  of  which  the 
baker  himself  testifies  that  it  is  bad  (Gen.  8  :  21).  Wretched 
is  the  leaven  which  its  maker  calls  bad  (Ps.  103  :  14). 
Wretched   the   plant  which   the   planter  himself  calls   bad 

1  nT3;;T  kix' 


THE    YECER   HARA  121 

(Jer.  11  :  17).^  According  to  Pinchas  b.  Jair,  there  are  three 
things  which  God  repented  having  made:  the  Chaldeans 
(Isa.  23  :  13),  the  Arabians  (Job  12  :  6),  and  the  evil  yeger 
(Mic.  4  :  6,  "and  what  I  have  done  ill  "  ^ni^in).^  He  also 
interpreted  Isa.  46  :  4,  "I  have  created,  I  will  take  away  " 
of  the  evil  yeger.^  Abahu  found  the  interpretation  of  Gen. 
6  :  6  in  the  words,  "was  grieved  at  his  heart,^'  i.  e.,  at  man's 
lieart,  the  evil  yeger.  God  lamented  as  one  who  had  made 
something  that  was  not  good :  I  am  he  that  put  the  leaven 
into  the  dough,  for  the  yeger  of  man's  heart  is  evil  from  his 
youth.* 

It  is  not  so  easy  to  determine  whether  the  connection  of 
the  yeger  with  Satan  is  more  than  an  isolated  and  perhaps 
figurative  expression.  The  yeger  is  often  spoken  of  as  if  it 
were  an  outside  power.  Although  it  is  in  man  it  is  in  some 
sense  foreign  to  him,  "a  strange  god  within  him,"  so  that 
yielding  to  it  is  a  sort  of  idolatry  (p.  113).  "God  made 
man  upright"  (Eccles.  7  :  29),  then  rose  up  the  evil  yeger 
and  polluted  him.^  The  names  applied  to  it  in  Sucea  52* 
by  Joshua  b.  Levi  ^  suggest  an  outside  force.  The  evil  yeger 
has  seven  names :  God  called  it  evil  (Gen.  8  :  21) ;  Moses 
called  it  uncircumcised  (Deut.  10  :  16);  David,  unclean 
(Ps.  51  :  12);  Solomon,  enemy  (Prov.  25  :  31);  Isaiah, 
stumbling -hlock  (Isa.  57  :  14);  Ezekiel,  stone  (Ezek.  36  :  26); 
Joel,  Jddden  (Joel  2  :  20).  In  a  number  of  passages  in  Psalms 
and  Proverbs  "  the  wicked  "  or  "  the  enemy  "  has  this  inter- 
pretation. Thus  Ps.  13  :  5  in  the  Targum  (Taylor,  p.  130); 
Ps.  37  :  32  by  R.  Simon  b.  Lakish  (^Succa  52'',  Kiddushin 
30^);  Ps.  91  :  10  by  R.  Chisda  (^Sanli.  103^):  The  evil  yeger 
will   not   rule   over   thee.     And   finally  we  have  the  same 

1  Ninn.  rah.,  13  ;   Gen.  rah.,  34. 

2  So  J.,  Taanith,  66  *.  In  Succa,  52"',  the  saying  is  assigned  to  the  school  of 
Rab.  and  the  Exile  (Isa.  52  :  5)  is  added. 

3  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  498  f. 

*  Tanch.,  Gen.  6:6;  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  140.     Bacher  thinks  Abahu  may  have 
been  influenced  by  Christian  thought  in  his  emphasis  on  man's  depravity. 
6  Ta7ich.,  Gen.  7  ;  Weber,  p.  206  (2  213). 
6     Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  132. 


122  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

rabbi's  saying :  "  Satan,  evil  yeger  and  the  angel  of  death  are 
one."  Tliis  is  proved  from  Job  2  :  6  where  Satan  has  power 
to  take  Job's  soul,  like  the  angel  of  death,  and  from  the 
word  pi,  used  in  Job  1  :  12  of  Satan,  and  in  Gen.  6  :  5  of 
the  yeger.^  In  Sifrci  86*  it  is  the  yeger  that  objects  to  cer- 
tain prescriptions  of  the  law  (p.  114),  but  in  the  Baraitha  ^ 
and  in  Joma  67^  it  is  Satan.  Jalkut  unites  the  two.  The 
yeger  seems  to  have  taken  to  itself  the  chief  function  of 
Satan,  that  of  temptation.  It  is  against  its  assaults  that 
the  righteous  man's  efforts  are  directed.  To  be  delivered 
from  it  he  prays.  Taylor,  after  gathering  rabbinical  material 
illustrative  of  the  prayer,  Deliver  us  from  the  evil,  hesitates 
whether  to  interpret  it  of  the  evil  one,  or  of  the  evil  yeger, 
but  thinks  the  latter  should  at  least  be  included.^  Evil 
(^"1)  is  its  original  designation,  the  name  given  it  by  God. 
Some  of  the  prayers  against  it  will  be  cited  below.  From 
R.  Jonathan  a  striking  saying  is  reported  in  which  fully 
Satanic  deeds  are  ascribed  to  the  yeger :  It  misleads  men  in 
this  world  and  testifies  against  them  in  the  world  to  come 
(based  on  Prov.  29  :  21).* 

If  the  yeger  in  a  measure  displaces  Satan  in  the  rabbinical 
account  of  sin  it  must  be  regarded  as  a  movement  in  the 
direction  of  a  more  ethical  and  rational  conception.  For 
the  yeger^  however  vividly  it  is  personified,  always  remains 
the  tendency  and  disposition  of  a  man's  own  heart.  Satan 
cannot  be  appealed  to  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  the  origin 
of  the  yeger. 

As  to  God's  responsibility  for  the  evil  yeger^  then,  opin- 
ions waver  between  various  explanations.  God  made  the 
good  yeger  also,  and  man  is  responsible  for  the  evil,  or  at 
least  for  its  persistence  in  Israel  and  for  its  power  over  the 
good ;  or  the  evil  yeger  itself  is  good,  or  at  least  inevitable  in 

'  Baba  bathra,  16*;  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  324. 
2  Bacher,  Tan.,  I.  42,  n.  3. 
«  Sayings,  pp.  128-130,  186-192. 

*  Succa,  52  ^  See  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  61,  and  note  by  Goldschmidt  explaining 
the  exegesis  according  to  which  pjO  is  made  equivalent  to  mriD. 


THE   YECER  HARA  123 

this  world,  and  men  are  to  turn  it  to  good  uses;  or  it  is 
essentially  evil,  a  mistake  or  miscarriage  in  creation,  which 
God  regrets  and  will  hereafter  remedy.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
among  the  various  efforts  to  explain  God's  responsibility  for 
the  evil  yeger  it  is  never  said  that  it  inheres  in  an  eternal 
matter  by  whose  properties  God  was  limited  when  he  made 
the  world,  that  is,  the  Hebrew  never  gives  place  to  the 
Greek  explanation  which  Philo  adopts.  The  important  ques- 
tion to  a  Jew  was  not  how  it  came  to  be,  but  how  men  are  to 
master  it,  and  how  God  is  at  the  end  to  destroy  it.  It  is 
as  true  of  rabbinical  as  of  Old  Testament  theology  that  it 
is  weak  in  theories  of  the  origin  of  sin,  but  strong  both  in 
effort  and  in  hope  for  its  conquest. 

4.    The  Conquest  of  the  Yeger  hy  Man 

The  conquest  of  the  evil  yeger  is  a  hard  task  because  of 
its  power,  but  is  possible  because  of  man's  moral  freedom 
and  especially  because  of  Israel's  possession  of  the  Law  and 
the  help  of  God  given  in  answer  to  prayer. 

a.  The  power  of  the  yeger  is  often  set  forth.  Though  it 
is  in  man  from  his  youth,  it  increases  in  strength  as  man 
grows  to  maturity,  and  it  persists  in  its  hold  even  to  old  age. 

The  power  of  the  evil  yeger  is  set  forth  by  various  sayings 
in  Succa,  52^ ^  Of  the  "hidden  one,"  Joel  2  :  20,  it  is  said, 
"because  he  hath  done  great  things,"  Abaji  said,  Most  of  all 
to  the  scribes.  Then  as  he  grieved  because  the  evil  yeger  in 
the  form  of  lust  had  greater  power  over  him  than  over  some 
common  man,  an  old  man  came  and  taught  him,  One  who 
is  greater  than  his  neighbor,  his  yeger  is  also  greater  (cf. 
Kiddushin^  36^). ^  In  its  connection  this  cannot  refer  merely 
to  native  energy,  but  must  be  understood  of  sensuous  pas- 
sions.    The  greater  the  man  the  harder  his  moral  struggles. 

1  The  saying  reminds  one  of  Sir,  28 :  10:  According  to  the  fuel  of  the  fire, 
so  will  it  burn ;  .  .  .  according  to  the  might  of  the  man  will  be  his  wrath  ((i  Pu^uos) ; 
•which,  however,  may  mean  that  men  measure  their  anger  by  their  ca^icity  to 
giye  it  effect. 


124  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

II.  Isaac  said:  A  man's  yeger  overmasters  [or,  renews  it- 
self in]  him  every  day  (Gen.  6:5).  11.  Simon  b.  Lakish, 
Man's  yeger  overmasters  liim  daily  and  strives  to  kill  him 
(Ps.  37  :  32);  and  if  the  Holy  One  did  not  help  him  he 
could  do  nothing  against  it  (Ps.  37  :  33). i  K.  Huna  said 
At  first  the  evil  yeger  befools  men  (Hos.  4  :  12),  then  it 
dwells  in  them  (5  :  4).  Raba  said.  At  first  it  is  called 
traveller,  then  guest,  then  man  [i.  c,  the  man  of  the  house] 
(2  Sam.  12  :  4).  The  same  thing  is  said,  in  Gen.  rah.  22,  of 
8i)i  by  R.  Isaac.  There  we  find  also  Akiba's  interpreta- 
tion of  Isa.  5  :  18  as  applied  to  sin,  which  in  Succa  52*  is 
ascribed  to  R.  Asi  and  applied  to  the  yeger :  At  the  begin- 
ning it  is  like  a  thread  of  the  spinning  web,  but  at  the  end  it 
is  like  a  cart  rope.  G-en.  rah.,  22,  gives  us  also  this  inference 
from  the  fact  that  the  word  "sin  "  in  Genesis  4  :  7  is  mascu- 
line, elsewhere  feminine:  In  the  beginning  sin  is  weak  as  a 
woman,  but  afterward  it  becomes  strong  as  a  man.^ 

According  to  Gen.  rah.,  54,  R.  Josua  b.  Levi  based  on 
Proverbs  16  :  7  the  saying:  If  one  lives  with  his  neighbor  two 
or  three  years  they  become  friends ;  but  the  evil  yeger  lives 
with  man  from  his  earliest  youth  and  will  destroy  him  even 
in  his  seventieth  or  eightieth  year  if  it  finds  opportunity.^ 
Ecclesiastes  4  :  13  is  interpreted  of  the  two  impulses.  The 
poor,  wise  youth  is  the  good  yeger ;  a  youth,  because  it  does 
not  stir  in  man  until  he  is  thirteen  years  old ;  poor,  because 
not  all  obey  him;  wise,  because  he  teaches  man  the  right 
way.  The  old,  foolish  king  is  the  evil  yeger  ;  king,  because 
all  obey  him ;  old,  because  he  has  to  do  with  man  from  youth 
to  age;  foolish,  because  he  teaches  men  the  bad  way  and 
will  not  be  warned  of  the  suffering  that  is  coming  upon  him 
{Eccles.  rah.  4  :  13,  cf.  9  :  14-15). 

But  though  in  one  sense  the  yeger  belongs  to  the  nature  of 

1  The  two  last  sayings  are  founfl  also  in  Kidclushin,  30^. 

2  Cf.  R.  Abiu's  interpretation  of  wPl  in  Dent.  7:15:  It  is  the  evil  )/ccer  which 
is  sweet  in  the  beginning  and  bitter  at  the  end  (./.  Sabb.  14  °,  Lev.  rub.  16,  Bacher, 
Amor.  III.  408.) 

*  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  132  u.  5. 


THE   YECER   HARA  125 

man,  and  though  its  evil  power  is  great,  yet  it  is  not  snch  as 
to  dominate  over  man  against  his  will,  and  there  are  those 
in  whom  it  has  no  ruling  power.  All  men,  says  Jose  the 
Galilean,  are  divided  into  three  classes,  the  righteous,  who 
are  under  the  rule  of  the  good  impulse  (proved  from  Ps. 
109  :  22,  My  heart  is  wounded  in  me,  i.  e.,  my  evil  yeger  is 
slain);  the  wicked  who  are  ruled  only  by  the  evil  yeger  (Ps. 
36  :  2,  Sin  speaks  to  the  wicked,  etc.);  and  a  middle  class, 
ruled  now  by  one,  now  by  the  other  (Ps.  109  :  31,  "  Those 
who  judge  his  soul"  are  the  two  yegcrs).^  Or,  according  to 
Eccles.  rah.  4  :  15,  16,  there  are  two  classes ;  those  who  walk 
with  the  good  yeger  are  the  righteous,  and  those  who  submit 
to  the  evil  yeger  are  the  wicked.  —  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob 
were  free  from  the  evil  yeger,  and  in  David  also  it  was  slain 
(above,  p.  111). 

This  mastery  of  the  righteous  over  their  yeger  is  described 
in  two  ways,  according  to  the  varying   conception    of   the 
yeger  itself.     Regarded  as  in  some  sense  a  good  and  indis- 
pensable part  of  creation,  it  is  to  be  turned  to  good  uses;     \ 
regarded  as  the  impulse  to  sin,  it  is  to  be  suppressed.     The    / 
latter  is  the  prevailing  point  of  view.     The  former  is  ex-    I 
pressed    in    the   saying    already   quoted:    Yeger^    child   and 
woman,  the  left  hand  shall  reject  while  the  right  hand  draws 
them  near.     The  same  rabbi,   Simon  b.  Eleazar,  says:  The 
evil  yeger  is  like  iron.     From  iron  one  may  make  all  sorts  of 
vessels  if  only  he  cast  it  into  the  fire.     So  one  can  make  the 
evil  yeger  useful  by  the  words  of  the  Law.     This  is  proved 
by  Proverbs   25  :  21  f . :  If   thou   soothe    thine   enemy  (the 
yeger)  with  bread  and  water  (the  Law),   God  will  make  it 
thy  friend  (Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  436). ^     R.' Isaac  said:  A  man 
had   two   cows,   one   meant    for  ploughing,  the   other   not.     y 
If  he  wants  the  latter  to  plough  he  puts  the  yoke  on  both. 
Should  you  not  also  join  the  evil  impulse  to  the  good,  and 
so  be  able   to  turn  it  whither  you  will?     So  David  prays 
(Ps.   86  :  11),  Unite  the  double  yeger  of  my  heart  (^^^7) 


1  Ah.  di  R.  Nathan,  32,  and  in  variant  form,  Berach.,  61 ",  Bacher,  Tan.,  I.  368. 
^  The  same  saving  is  aspribed  to  R.  Berachiah,  Bacher,  Amor.,  III.  381  f. 

c'v. 


^  '•'  "~  A,i9 


126  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

to  fear  thy  name  (Bacher,  Amor.^  II.  289  f.).     We  are  to 
praise  God  with  the  evil  yeger  as  well  as  with  the  good. 

But  the  evil  yeger^  regarded  simply  as  sin,  it  is  man's  moral 
task  to  subdue.  "  Thou  hast  given  it  to  us  that  we  may  by 
it  (by  conquering  it)  receive  reward  "  (Towa,  69  :  6).  The 
passage  most  quoted  in  proof  of  man's  power  to  master  his 
yeger  is  Gen.  4:7.  It  lurks  at  the  door  of  thy  heart,  a  con- 
stant menace,  and  toward  thee  is  its  desire,  but  thou  shalt 
rule  over  it  (e.  g. ,  Kiddushin  30'').  "  Who  is  mighty  ?  He 
that  subdues  his  yeger  "  (Prov.  16:  32;  Aboth,  4  :  2,  Taylor). 
It  is  only  one  who  delicately  brings  up  his  evil  yeger  in  his 
youth  who  will  have  to  lament  it  in  his  age  (R.  Abin  on  Prov. 
29  :  21,  G-en.  rah.  22 ;  Bacher,  Amor.,  III.  407).  One  of  several 
interpretations  of  Psalm  41  :  2,  Blessed  is  he  that  considereth 
the  poor,  is  that  of  R.  Meir:  The  poor  is  the  good  yeger  in 
man,  which  is  poor  and  weak  over  against  the  evil  yeger. 
Blessed  is  he  who  makes  the  good  yeger  rule  over  the  evil 
{Lev.  rah.  34). ^  R.  Josua  b.  Levi  interpreted  Ps.  60  :  23 
thus,  He  who  sacrifices  his  yeger  and  makes  confession 
(IlTin)  over  it.  Scripture  reckons  it  to  him  as  if  he  had 
showed  God  double  honor,  in  this  world,  and  in  the  world 
to  come  (Sank.  43^).  And  on  Psalm  112  :  1,  he  says,  Blessed 
is  he  who  as  a  man  overcomes  his  yeger  [Ahoda  Zara  "i'9'').2 
G-en.  rah.  22  reports  a  saying  of  Abba  b.  Kahana's  (?)  how 
the  evil  yeger  had  brought  to  destruction  many  generations, 
that  of  Enoch,  of  the  dispersion  of  nations,  of  the  flood,  but 
Abraham  saw  that  this  great  robber  had  no  real  power  so 
he  struck  him  down  (Ps.  89  :  24  [23]).  A  similar  saying  of 
Chama  b.  Chanina's  is  reported,  interpreting  Job  24  :  22: 
The  evil  yeger  "draws  away  the  mighty,"  i.  e.,  the  race  of 
Enoch  and  of  the  flood  and  of  the  confusion  of  languages 
and  of  the  Sodomites;  therefore  "riseth  up  "  the  pious  and 
God  "  believes  him  not  so  long  as  he  lives "  (cf .  also  Job 
15  ;  15).3 

1  Wunsche,  p.  234  ;  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  64;  Amor.,  III.  523. 

2  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  132.     See  further  sayings  in  Amor.,  III.  152,  315. 
8  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  465. 


THE    YECER   HARA  127 

It  must  be  added  that  the  idea  of  the  evil  yeger  as  belong- 
ing to  man  by  nature,  and  having  not  only  great  power  over 
him  but  also  a  sort  of  right  in  this  world,  led  sometimes  to  the 
use  of  it  as  an  excuse  for  sin.  On  Isaiah  22  :  26  R^bba  ba*- 
bar  Ghana  said :  The  prophet  said  to  Israel,  Return  in  peni- 
tence !  They  said,  We  cannot  for  the  evil  yeger  rules  over 
us.  He  said  to  them,  chasten  your  yeqarim  ;  ^  they  answered, 
His  God  teaches  us  (that  this  cannot  be).^  In  Tanch.  on 
Gen.  4  :  9,  Cain  charges  God  with  being  guilty  of  his  crime 
because  God  created  in  him  the  evil  yeger  (Taylor,  p.  37). 
On  the  Mishna,  He  who  does  not  spare  the  honor  of  his 
creator,  it  were  better  for  him  if  he  had  not  come  into  the 
world,  R.  Joseph  said.  This  refers  to  one  who  commits  a  sin 
in  secret,  according  to  the  teaching  of  R.  Isaac,  who  said 
that  when  one  committed  a  sin  in  secret  he  stamps  upon  the 
feet  of  the  Shekina,  for  it  is  written,  Heaven  is  my  throne 
and  earth  is  my  footstool  (Isa.  Q%  :  1).  R.  Ilai  the  elder, 
however,  said.  When  a  man  sees  that  his  yeger  has  the 
mastery  over  him,^  he  goes  to  a  place  where  he  is  not  known, 
clothes  himself  black,  veils  himself  black  and  does  what 
his  heart  desires,  and  does  not  profane  the  name  of  heaven 
openly.  —  That  is  no  objection  (to  Isaac's  saying),  it  is 
answered,  for  one  is  valid  for  him  who  can  bend  his  yeger^ 
the  other  for  one  who  cannot  (^Chagiga^  16^).* 

b.  The  Law  is  the  great  cure  for  this  malady  in  human 
nature.  Raba  says,  If  God  created  in  man  the  evil  yeger^ 
he  created  also  a  remedy  for  it,  the  Law  (Baba  Bathra,  16*). 
This  is  the  answer  of  Eliphaz  (Job  15  :  4)  to  Job's  com- 
plaint (10  :  7).  So  in  Kiddushin,  30",  the  words,  Ye  shall 
take  these  my  words  to  your  heart  (Deut.  11  :  18)  are  inter- 
preted as  meaning  that  the  Law  is  a  remedy  ^  for  the  yeger. 
It  is  like  a  father  who  smote  his  son  and  then  put  a  plaster 
on  the  wound  and  said  to  him,  My  son,  as  long  as  the  plaster 

2  Sanh.  105  »,  Wiinsche,  p.  244. 

*  nnv^S  f]"3  'vn  vhi  xn  nnv^S  n^S  «^"3  'vm  nh 

6  DHDiyi  Ye  shall  take  =  Qr\  DD.  a  perfect  remedy. 


128  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

is  on  your  wound  you  may  eat  and  drink  what  you  please ; 
you  may  wash  in  warm  water  or  in  cold,  and  need  have  no 
fear.  But  if  you  take  it  away  an  evil  ulcer  will  come  forth. 
So  God  said  to  the  Israelites,  My  sons,  I  created  the  evil 
yeger^  I  created  for  it  the  Law  as  a  remedy  (T'O^jH,  literally, 
spice  or  seasoning).  If  you  are  occupied  with  the  Law  you 
will  not  be  delivered  into  its  hand  ^  (Gen.  4  :  7*) ;  but  if 
you  neglect  the  Law  you  will  fall  into  its  power  (v.  7^) ;  yet 
if  you  will  you  can  rule  over  it  (v.  7'^). 

From  the  school  of  Ishmael  the  saying  is  reported :  If  this 
hateful  thing  (the  yeger)  meets  you,  draw  it  into  the  school 
(heth  ha-Midrash) ;  if  it  is  stone,  the  Law,  which  is  like  water 
(Isa.  55  :  1)  will  wear  it  away  (Job  14  :  19) ;  if  it  is  iron  it 
will  break  it  in  pieces  (Jer.  23  :  29). ^  God  has  made  statutes 
not  only  for  heaven  and  earth,  sun,  moon,  etc.,  but  also  for 
the  evil  yeger  (or  graven  statutes  upon  it)^  prescribing  its 
bounds  (Bacher,  Amor.^  I.  451).  Upon  this  saying  of  Chama 
b.  Chanina,  R.  Levi  remarks.  It  is  like  a  desert  place  occu- 
pied by  troops;  the  king  sets  desert  troops  (beduins)  to 
watch  it.  So  God  says,  The  Law  is  called  a  stone  (Ex. 
24  :  12),  and  the  evil  yeger  is  called  a  stone  (Ezek.  36  :  26). 
One  stone  shall  guard  the  other  stone  {Lev.  ruh.  35;  Cant, 
rah.  6  :  11).  With  this  maj-  be  compared  the  interpretation 
of  Isaiah  26  :  3,  ascribed  to  R.  Simon  and  R.  Chanina  b.  Papa 
{Gen.  rah.  22):^  If  the  evil  yeger  comes  and  will  make  you 
frivolous,  watch  it  (or,  repel  it)  ^  with  the  words  of  the  Law. 
If  you  do  so  I  (God)  reckon  it  to  you  as  if  you  had  created 
peace  in  this  world,  peace  in  the  coming  world. ^  But  say 
not  the  yeger  is  not  in  your  power,  for  I  have  already  written 
in  the  Law,  Toward  thee  is  its  desire,  but  thou  shalt  rule 
over  it  (Gen.  4  :  7).     R.  Chama  b.  Chanina,  in  one  of  six 

1  Perhaps  based  on  Sir.  21  :  11.     See  below  p.  140  f. 

2  Succa,  52'";  Kiddnschin,  SO*";  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  337. 

8  ^nn  nr  bj;  D'pipn  nniy  D'pn 

*  Bacher,  Amor.,  II.  443. 

6  Taking  "<iyn  (Isa.  26  :  3)  from  1VJ,  watch,  or  from  "ni*,  press  upon. 
^  Taking  *1i:fn  in  this  case  from   i:f\  fashion,  and  applying  the  repeated 
Shalom   to  the  two  worlds. 


THE    YECER   HARA  129 

interpretations  of  Gen.  29  :  2,  likens  the  stone  to  the  evil 
yeger.  As  the  stone  is  rolled  away  from  the  well's  mouth 
(v.  3)  80  the  evil  yeger  departs  when  men  go  into  the  syna- 
gogue to  drink  of  the  Law,  but  when  they  go  out  the  evil 
yeger  returns  to  its  place  {Gen.  rah.  70,  Wunsche,  p.  341). 
That  the  Law  did  not  take  the  place  of  moral  and  religious 
struggle  in  the  conquest  of  the  yeger  is  suggested  by  the 
directions  for  its  overcoming  which  Simon  b.  Lakish  found 
in  Psalm  4 :  5  ^  Let  a  man  always  bring  the  good  yeger  in  wrath 
against  the  evil  yeger  ("be  angry  and  sin  not "  \i.  e.,  that  ye 
may  not  sin]).  If  he  conquers  it,  well;  if  not,  let  him 
occupy  himself  with  the  Law  ("speak  in  your  heart").  If 
he  conquers  it,  well ;  if  not,  let  him  read  the  Shema  ("  upon 
your' bed  ").  If  he  conquers  it,  well;  if  not,  let  him  remind 
it  of  death  ("and  be  still,  Selah  "). 

c.  Most  frequently,  however,  Prayer  and  divine  help  are 
recognized  as  necessary  to  man's  victory  over  the  yeger. 
"  The  evil  yecer  seeks  constantly  to  get  the  upper  hand  over 
man  and  to  kill  him ;  and  if  God  did  not  help  him  he  could 
not  resist  it,  Ps.  37  :  82-38  (Succa  52^  Simon  b.  Lakish.) 
Of  the  nature  of  prayer  are  the  oaths  by  which  in  the  pas- 
sages already  cited  (p.  112)  various  men  of  the  Bible  over- 
powered or  exorcised  their  evil  yecer. 

The  prayer  to  be  said  in  connection  with  the  Shema  upon 
retiring  at  night  contains  the  petition,  "  Bring  me  not  into 
the  power  of  sin,  or  temptation,  or  shame;  and  let  not  the 
evil  yeger  rule  in  me ;  ^  and  guard  me  from  evil  lot,  and 
from  evil  sicknesses.  Let  not  dreams  and  evil  thoughts 
(Onin^rt)  disturb  me,"  etc.  {Berach,,  60").  The  morning 
prayer  contains  a  similar  clause :  Bring  me  not  into  the  power 
of  sin,  temptation,  or  shame :  and  bend  my  yeger  to  submit 
itself  to  thee ;  ^  and  keep  me  far  from  evil  man  and  evil  asso- 
ciate;  and  let  me  hold  fast  to  the  good  yeger^^  and  to  the 

1  Berack.,  5' ;  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  354. 
'       9 


130  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

good  associate  (Berach.,  60^).     These  petitions  are  found  in 
the  Jewish  Prayer  Book. 

Among  the  private  prayers  which  various  rabbis  added  to 
those  prescribed,  some  include  similar  petitions.  Thus  Rabbi 
used  to  pray  that  God  would  keep  him  from  evil  man  (evil 
event,  evil  yeper),  evil  associate,  (evil  neighbor,  and  the 
destroying  Satan ).i  R.  Eleazar  (according  to  Bacher,  Amor.^ 
I.  244,  R.  Jochanan)  prayed  that  he  might  be  furnished 
with  good  associate  and  good  i/eger  (DID  "l^'l  DID  "IDHD) 
(Berach.,  16a).  R.  Alexander's  prayer  was  as  follows:  Lord 
of  the  worlds,  it  is  open  and  known  to  thee  that  it  is  our 
will  to  do  thy  will.  And  what  hinders  ?  The  leaven  in  the 
dough  (i.  e.,  the  i/eger  in  man),  and  servitude  under  the 
(world)  kingdoms.  May  it  be  thy  will  to  humble  these 
before  us  and  behind  us  (and  that  thou  remove  the  evil  i/eger 
from  us  and  humble  it  out  of  our  heart)  that  we  may  fulfil 
thy  will  again  with  a  perfect  heart.^  Mar  b.  Rabina  prayed, 
Keep  me  from  evil  event,  from  evil  yeger,  from  evil  wife, 
and  from  all  evils  (^Berach.,  17*).  R.  Jochanan,  Grant 
us  a  good  associate  and  a  good  yeger.^  R.  Isaac  inter- 
preted "  the  Lord  bless  thee  and  keep  thee  "  to  mean,  from 
the  evil  yeger^  Rabbi  understood  the  phrase  "that  it  be 
not  to  my  sorrow  "  in  the  prayer  of  Jabez  (1  Chr.  4  :  10), 
that  the  evil  yeger  hinder  me  not  in  study.^  R.  Chija  b. 
Ashi  used  to  pray.  Save  me  from  the  evil  yeger ;  yet  the 
prayer  did  not  save  him  from  falling  before  temptation 
(Kiddushin,  SV). 

5.    77ie  Removal  of  the  Yeger  hy  God 

The  evil  yeger  is  to  be  at  last  removed  and  destroyed  by 
God.     The  passage  upon  which  this  hope  chiefly  rested  was 

1  Berach.,  16*.  But  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.,  463  f.,  omits  the  bracketed  phrases  on 
manuscript  evidence  (see  Rabbinovicz,  Vuriae  lecliones,  etc.). 

2  Berach.,  17  •;  and  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  196,  who  defends  the  fuller  text. 
8  Berach.,  7  ;  Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  245. 

*  Si/re,  Nu.  6  :  24 ;  cf.  Prov.  3 :  26  ;  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  399. 
6  Mechilta,  18  :  27  ;  Temura,  16  • ;  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  483. 


THE    YECER  HARA  131 

Ezekiel  36  :  26  (cf.  11  :  19).  This  verse  is  in  itself  ca  strik- 
ing proof  that  "  no  idea  of  corrupt  inclination  attaches  to  the 
term,  flesh  "  in  Old  Testament  usage;  ^  and  its  frequent  use 
with  reference  to  the  final  removal  of  the  evil  yeger  from^men 
still  further  confirms  the  view  that  this  is  not  inherent  in 
matter  as  such.  The  mourning  in  Zech.  12  :  12  was  said  by 
some  to  be  for  Messiah  b.  Joseph,  who  was  slain,  by  others 
for  the  evil  yeger^  that  was  slain.  Why  should  there  be 
mourning  and  not  rather  joy  when  the  yecer  is  slain?  R. 
Juda  b.  Ilai  said:  Hereafter  the  Holy  One  will  bring  the 
evil  yeger  and  slay  it  before  the  face  of  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked.  It  will  seem  to  the  righteous  like  a  high  mountain, 
to  the  wicked  like  a  hair.  Both  will  weep.  The  righteous 
will  weep,  saying,  How  were  we  able  to  conquer  this  high 
mountain? 2  The  wicked  will  weep,  saying,  How  were  we 
not  able  to  conquer  this  hair.  And  the  Holy  One  also  will 
be  astonished  with  them,  according  to  Zech.  8  :  6,  "also  in 
my  eyes  will  it  seem  wonderful."^  God  said  to  Moses:  Be- 
cause in  this  world  the  evil  yeger  is  in  them  they  fall  away 
to  idolatry,  but  hereafter  I  will  root  out  of  you  the  evil  yeger 
and  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh  (Ezek.  86  :  26).^  To  Israel  he 
said,  In  this  world  you  will  be  torn  from  the  commandments 
by  the  evil  yeger,  but  hereafter  I  will  tear  it  out  of  you  (Ezek. 
36  :  26).^  There  is  indeed  a  sense  in  which  the  evil  impulse 
is  already  slain  in  the  righteous  (proved  by  Ps.  109  :  22, 
above,  p.  125).  In  another  sense  only  death  delivers  the 
righteous  from  it,  and  is  therefore  included  in  the  things 
that  are  very  good ;  ®  while  the  end  of  its  power  can  come 
only  with  the  end  of  the  world  (based  on  Ezek.  86  :  26, 
above,  p.  118).  God  created  the  evil  yeger^  but  will  here- 
after take  it  away  (Isa.  46  :  4,  above,  p.  121).  Rabbi  said, 
The  evil  yeger  in  man  is  like  a  robber  who  anticipates  punish- 

1  A.  B.  Davidson  on  Ezek.  36  :  26, 

2  Cf.  4  Ezra  7  :  92. 

8  Succa,  52  »;  Bacher,  Tan.,  H.  223. 

*  Exod.  rab.,  41,  end. 
6  Num.  rab.,  17,  end. 

*  Gen.  rab.,  9,  on  Job  3:17. 


132  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ment,  and  since  he  cannot  escape  it  accuses  his  companions 
of  being  accomplices.  So  the  yeger  thinks,  since  I  am  des- 
tined to  destruction  in  the  world  to  come,  I  will  bring  men 
to  destruction  with  me.^  R.  Simai  on  Hos.  12  :  2  offers  this 
parable :  A  great  rock  stood  on  a  forked  road  and  hindered 
commerce.  The  king  commanded  that  it  be  gradually  crum- 
bled up.  He  would,  when  the  time  was  come,  wholly 
remove  it.  So  the  yeger  to  sin  forms  the  great  rock  over 
which  Israel  stumbled.  It  is  gradually  crumbled,  but  will 
be  finally  removed  by  God,  according  to  Ezek.  36  :  26. ^  In 
Gen.  rah.  89  (beginning)  we  have  this  exposition  of  Job 
28  :  3:  As  long  as  the  evil  yeger  is  in  the  world  darkness 
and  the  shadow  of  death  are  in  the  world.  But  if  it  is 
rooted  out  these  will  be  no  more.^ 


6.    Summary 

The  result  of  our  review  is  trat  in  rabbinical  usage  the 
yeger  is  hardly  other  than  a  name  for  man's  evil  tendencies  or 
inclinations,  the  evil  disposition  which  as  a  matter  of  experi- 
ence exists  in  man,  and  which  it  is  his  moral  task  to  subdue 
or  control.  It  does  not  contain  a  metaphysical  explanation 
of  the  fact,  a  theory  as  to  its  source  or  nature.  The  proof 
of  the  various  things  that  are  said  of  the  yeger  is  always 
found,  in  the  fashion  of  the  rabbis,  in  Old  Testament  pas- 
sages more  naturally  or  more  artfully  applied.  In  some  cases 
the  passage,  rather  than  experience  and  reflection,  is  itself 
the  source  of  the  saying.  These  evil  inclinations  go  all  the 
way  up  from  sensual  passions  through  anger  and  revenge  to 
various  forms  of  selfishness  such  as  greed,  deceit,  and  pride, 
and  on  the  other  hand  to  religious  unbelief  and  idolatry. 
These  propensities  are  deeply  implanted  in  man's  nature  and 
are  not  due  to  his  will,  though  the  will  can  rule  over  them. 

1  Ab.  di  R.  Nathan  16;  Bacher,  Tan.,  II.  461. 

2  Racher,  Tan.,  II.  546. 

8  The  application  of  the  "  stone  of  darkness  "  in  this  Terse  to  the  yeger  is  as- 
crihed  to  Simon  b.  Lakish  in  Tanchuma  (Bacher,  Amor.,  I.  354). 


THE   YECER  HARA  133 

They  must  therefore,  in  a  monotheistic  view  of  the  world,  be 
ascribed  to  God's  creation.  Moreover  at  almost  every  stage 
it  can  be  seen  that  these  inclinations  are  not  wholly  evil,  but 
are  in  some  sense  necessary  to  human  life  and  progress.  Not 
on]y  the  impulse  that  aims  at  the  continuance  of  the  race, 
but  also  a  measure  of  self-assertion,  and  even  of  anger  and 
other  passionate  impulses,  though  they  easily  overmaster 
men  and  lead  them  to  sin,  are  yet  necessary  to  the  life  and 
progress  of  humanity  in  this  world.  But  though  a  theodicy 
can  rest  on  such  considerations,  the  moral  task  of  man  is  to 
control  these  impulses  of  his  nature.  For  this  end  man  has 
full  freedom  and  is  wholly  responsible.  Moreover,  God  has 
implanted  good  impulses  and  inclinations  in  men,  to  which 
they  can,  if  they  will,  give  the  upper  hand.  God,  however, 
has  provided  a  definite  remedy  in  the  Law.  Against  one 
who  studies  and  observes  its  precepts  the  evil  impulse  has 
little  power.  Further,  in  answer  to  prayer,  the  help  of  God 
may  be  gained  in  this  struggle,  which  always  remains  a  severe 
and  uncertain  one.  Men  are  sustained  in  this  warfare  by 
the  belief  that  there  is  another  world  in  which  the  evil 
impulse  does  not  exist,  that  the  righteous  enter  this 
world  after  death,  and  that  hereafter,  in  the  Messianic  age, 
the  powers  and  qualities  of  heaven  will  have  exclusive 
dominance. 

All  this,  it  is  evident,  has  nothing  to  do  with  a  dualistic 
contrast  of  body  and  soul.  Hamburger's  remark  must  rather 
be  accepted  as  in  the  main  just:  "In  contrast  to  the  dualism 
of  Plato,  Philo,  and  the  Gnostics,  Judaism. in  these  phrases 
[the  evil  and  the  good  yeger]  stated  and  developed  the  Bib- 
lical doctrine  of  evil  and  good."  A  quotation  may  also  well 
be  made  from  Lazarus's  Die  Ethik  des  Judenthums  (1898), 
p.  268 :  "  The  Jewish  view  of  the  world  in  general,  and  Jew- 
ish ethics  in  particular,  is  everywhere  grounded  upon  the 
actuality  of  existence  and  upon  the  actualization  of  the  idea; 
in  both,  however,  we  meet  always  with  soul  and  body  in 
connection  and  in  common  activity.  So  in  the  Biblical 
writings   we    see   the  contrast  of    good    and   evil  unceas- 


134  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ingly  discussed  and  emphasized;  but  almost  never  does  the 
contrast  of  soul  and  sense  there  come  before  us.  The  same 
manner  of  thought  meets  us  in  the  rabbinical  literature. 
The  "Sayings  of  the  Fathers,"  for  example,  has  not  unjustly 
been  called  a  sort  of  compendium  of  ethics;  but  in  all  the 
five  (or  six)  sections  of  which  it  is  composed  hardly  a  single 
time  is  the  contrast  of  spirit  and  body  suggested  "  (p.  266). 
He  cites  Aboth,  4  :  1  (Taylor,  4  :  2),  as  proving  that  the 
ye^er  is  not  sensuousness,  since  the  "patient  one  "  is  its  con- 
queror, and  the  parallel  speaks  expressly  of  control  and  inner 
freedom  in  the  spirit  itself.  "Eben  so  wenig  wie  DID  "1i** 
das  Rein-Geistige  bedeutet,  ist  ^")n  "1^*  die  Sinnlichkeit." 
Lazarus  is  right  too  in  saying  (p.  264)  that  the  important 
thing  in  the  rabbinical  view  of  man  is  not  that  his  natural 
impulse  is  twofold,  that  originally,  by  the  side  of  the  evil 
impulse,  stands  the  good.  More  important  is  the  thought: 
God  has  created  the  evil  impulse,  he  has  also  created  the 
Thora  as  a  remedy  against  it.  The  main  thing  is  not  the 
natural  disposition  of  man  —  even  to  good  —  but  the  Law 
that  redeems  from  the  impulse  of  nature.  Only  we  must 
doubt  whether  he  is  historically  just  in  taking  this  Law  to 
be  primarily  or  solely  the  moral  law,  the  creation  of  the  ethi- 
cal, which  surpasses  all  nature. 

It  must,  moreover,  be  evident,  apart  from  any  positive 
explanation  of  Paul's  doctrine,  that  the  parallelism  between 
his  contrast  of  spirit  and  flesh  and  the  rabbinical  contrast  of 
.the  good  and  evil  impulses  is  remote  and  insignificant.  Of 
course  Paul  in  Rom.  7  is  describing  the  same  experience 
of  struggle  between  two  opposing  forces  in  man  upon  which 
the  Jewish  doctrine  rests,  but  his  way  of  expressing  the 
struggle  as  a  war  between  the  law  (of  sin)  in  his  members, 
and  the  law  of  his  mind  (i/of)?),  or  between  that  which  he 
possesses  and  does  in  his  flesh  and  in  his  mind,  is  widely 
different  from  the  Jewish  conception,  and  seems  to  rest  on  a 
different  view  of  the  world  and  of  man. 

It  is  especially  evident  that  Paul's  conception  of  the  Spirit 
has  almost  nothing  in  common  with  the  relatively  unimpor- 


THE   YECER  HARA  135 

tant  rabbinical  idea  of  the  good  yeger.  On  the  other  hand 
there  is  a  closer,  though  still  remote,  parallelism  between  his 
contrast  of  spirit  and  flesh,  and  the  Jewish  conception  of  the 
Law  as  the  divinely  given  remedy  for  the  evil  nature  of  man, 
the  power  before  which  it  must  yield. 


136  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


IV 

THE  PRESENCE  OF  THE   CONCEPTION  IN  EARLIER 
SOURCES 

A  distinct  and  significant  Hellenistic  element  in  the  Jew- 
ish doctrine  of  the  yeger  may  be  confidently  denied.  It 
remains  to  inquire  after  the  time  of  its  development.  Is  it 
attested  only  for  the  post-Christian  period?  This  develop- 
ment must  certainly  have  begun  in  the  Old  Testament  period, 
for  though  First  Chronicles  28  :  9  and  29  :  18  only  cite  the 
phrases  of  Genesis  6:5;  8  :  21,  yet  in  Deuteronomy  31  :  21 
(Exilic  or  post-Exilic),  and  probably  in  Isaiah  26  :  3  (late 
post-Exilic)  yeger  is  used,  without  modification,  of  the  dis- 
position, or  mind.  In  Psalm  103  :  14  the  word  may  mean 
"frame  "  as  the  second  clause  suggests  (Gen.  2:7;  3  :  19); 
but  the  context  suggests  a  wider  sense,  "nature,"  as  Well- 
hausen  renders  it.^  That  which  characterizes  the  rabbinical 
use  in  distinction  from  the  Biblical  is  not  the  contrast  of 
two  yegers,  a  good  and  an  evil,  and  not  a  radical  departure 
from  the  sense  "mind"  or  "disposition"  already  found,  but 
rather  the  choice  of  this  word,^  with  its  emphatic  use  and 
partial  personification,  for  the  seat  and  power  of  temptation 
and  sin  in  man. 

1.    The  Book  of  Sirach 

We  must  turn  to  the  Book  of  Sirach  for  light  upon  the 
early  stages  of  the  transition  from  the  Biblical  to  the  rabbin- 
ical use  of  the  word.^     From  the  parts  of  this  book  now 

^  Haupt's  Bible.     So  Dulim,  Die  Psalmen,  1899,  translates  it  Wesen. 
2  Especially  in  place  of  "  heart,"  "  evil  heart,"  etc.,  or  "  thoughts  (m^tynO)   of 
the  heart,"  and  similar  expressions. 

*  It  is  important  to  observe  that  there  was  no  Greek  word  with  which  the 


THE   YECER  HARA  137 

known  in  the  original  Hebrew  we  are  able  in  a  measure  to 
confirm  and  correct  hypotheses  already  put  forth  as  to  the 
occurrence  and  meaning  of  the  word.^  The  most  important 
passage  for  our  purpose  is  15  :  14.  It  reads,  in  its  connec- 
tion, in  Taylor's  version  of  the  Hebrew,  as  follows:  — 

"11.    Say  not,  My  transgression  was  of  God; 
For  that  which  he  hateth  he  made  not. 

12.  Lest  thou  say,  He  it  was  that  made  me  stumble ; 
For  there  is  no  need  of  men  of  violence. 

13.  Wickedness  and  an  abomination  the  Lord  hateth; 
And  will  not  let  it  befal  them  that  fear  him. 

14.    For  (?)  God  created  man  from  the  beginning; 

And  put  him  into  the  hand  of  him  that  would  spoil  him 
And  gave  him  into  the  hand  of  his  inclination  [;yeger]  ^ 

15.  If  thou  choose,  thou  mayest  keep  the  commandment; 
And  it  is  understanding  to  do  his  will. 

15'^>.  If  thou  trust  in  him,  thou  shalt  even  live. 

16.  Fire  and  water  are  poured  out  before  thee : 

Upon  whichsoever  thou  choosest  stretch  forth  thy  hands. 

17.  Death  and  life  are  before  a  man : 

That  which  he  shall  choose  shall  be  given  him"  (15  :  11-17). 

various  meanings  of  the  Hebrew  yefer  could  be  rendered.  In  its  literal  meaning  the 
verb  was  commonly  rendered  in  the  LXX  by  irXiaaw,  and  the  noun  by 
^KdcTfia  in  Isa.  29  :  16,  Hab.  2  :  18,  Ps.  103  :  14.  Aquilla  and  Sym.  use  it  also  in 
Dt.  31  :  21,  Isa.  26  :  3.  But  this  word  could  not  bear  the  figurative  meaning  of 
the  Hebrew.  In  Gen.  8 :  21  ye^er  of  the  heart "  is  rendered  t]  Sidvota ;  so  in 
1  Chr.  29  :  18  "  in  the  yeger  of  the  thoughts  of  the  heart  "  =  iy  Siavoia  KapSias; 
while  in  Gen.  6  :  5  ("  every  yeger  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart ")  iras  ris  StavoeTrai 
iv  rrj  KapSia  avrov.  But  in  1  Chr.  28  :  9"  every  yeger  of  the  thoughts  "  becomes 
vav  fv0vfj.7)fj.a.  The  word  is  rendered  by  rj  irov-qpia  in  Dt.  31  :  21,  and  is  passed  by  in 
Isa.  26  :  3,  unless  indeed  our  Hebrew  text  itself  is  corrupt. 

^  See  Cowley  and  Neubauer,  The  Original  Hebrew  of  a  Portion  of  Ecclesiasti- 
cus  (39  :  15-49  :  11),  1897  ;  Schechterand  Taylor,  The  Wisdom  of  Ben-Sir  a  (3:6"- 
7  :  29»,  11  :  34",  12  :  2-16  :  26,  30  :  11-31  :  11,  32  :  l''-33  :  3,  3.5  :  9-20,  36  :  1-21, 
37  :  27-38  :  27,  49  :  12-51  :  30),  1899 ;  G.  Margoliouth,  in  Jewish  Quar.  Rev.,  xii. 
p.  1-33  (31  :  12-31,  36:22-37:26;  E.  N.  Adler,  J.  Q.  R,  xii.  p.  466-480  (7:29- 
12  : 1) ;  and  further  fragments  in  J.  Q.  R.,  xii.  p.  456-465,  688-702,  and  by  Levi 
in  Revue  des  Etudes  juives,  xl.  1-30.  All  these  fragments  are  reproduced  in 
Facsimiles  of  the  Fragments,  etc.,  1901.  See  the  commentaries  of  Fritzsche 
and  Edersheim  (before  the  discovery  of  the  Hebr.),  and  of  Ryssel  in  Kautzsch's 
Apocryphen  (after  Cowley  and  Neubauer's  ed.). 


138  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

The  occurrence  of  the  word  yeger  in  this  passage  (15  :  14) 
had  already  been  surmised  on  the  basis  of  the  Greek,  koI 
d(f)rJK€v  avTov  iv  ^etpt  Bta/SovXiov  avroii,  and  Syriac,  "1*3 
pn*lV^^  If  the  second  and  third  lines  of  the  verse  in  Hebrew 
are  doublets  (Schechter),  the  Greek  decides  in  favor  of  the 
third  as  the  more  original.  Since  the  second  line  is  want- 
ing in  the  Greek,  we  should  not,  perhaps,  put  weight  upon 
the  personification  of  the  yecer  which  it  implies.  It  is  quite 
possible,  however,  that  the  line  was  omitted  by  the  trans- 
lator, or  by  later  Christian  scribes,  as  suggesting  too  much 
intention  on  the  part  of  God  that  man  should  fall  into  sin. 
It  is  not  easy  to  make  out  the  exact  views  of  Edersheim  and 
Ryssel  as  to  the  relation  of  the  word  in  this  passage  to  its 
earlier  and  later  uses.^  Edersheim  says  that  it  is  used  here 
"not  in  the  later  application  of  it  to  either  the  good  or  the 
evil  impulse  in  man,  but  in  the  earlier  meaning  of  disposi- 
tion, mind,  counsel  (Sinn,  Gesinnung)."  This  earlier  use 
must  be  the  Old  Testament  use.  Yet  on  17  :  6,  where  the 
Greek  translator,  mistaking,  as  the  Syriac  indicates,  the  verb 
for  the  noun,  renders  "IV  again  by  Bia^ovXiov^'^  Edersheim 
translates  it  as  before,  "disposition,  mind  =  *)\f»."  Then, 
after  reviewing  its  use  in  LXX  in  the  plural,  in  the  sense  of 
"counsels,"  "purposes,"  and  "thoughts  "  (Ps.  5  :  11;  9  :  23 
[10  :  2];  Hos.  11  :  6;  cf.  4  :  9;  5  :  4;  7  :  2),  he  adds:  "We 
infer  that  the  use  of  Sia^ovXiov  and  of  1)^''  in  that  sense  [i.  e., 
counsel,  purpose,  etc.  ?]  was  post-biblical,  and,  as  regards 
the  Greek  term,  we  would  suggest,  Alexandrian."  Does 
this  mean  that  hia^ovXiov  became  identified  with  "|^^*  in  its 
Old  Testament  meaning  (disposition),  and  then  was  carried 
over  with  it  to  the  later  meaning  (counsel,  etc.)?  and  what 
had  Alexandrian  influence  to  do  with  the  transition?  In 
fact,  there  is  no  evidence  of  a  fixed  habit  of  rendering  yeger 
by  this  word. 

1  Edersheim,  and  Taylor,  Sayings,^  p.  151  f. 

2  It  should  be  noted  that  Ryssel  as  well  as  Edersheim  wrote  before  the  He- 
brew of  this  part  of  the  book  had  come  to  light,  but  both  recognized  the  ^2f' 
of  the  original. 

8  Hence  read  "  He  created  also,"  for  R.  V.  "  counsel  and." 


THE    YECER   HARA  139 

Ryssel  seems  to  rest  in  part  on  Edersheim,  but  makes 
assertions  quite  contrary  to  his.  In  15  :  14  he  translates 
the  word,  "self-determination"  (Selbstentscheidung),  and 
remarks :  "  =  Bta^ovXiov,  which  word  renders  not  the  orig- 
inal significance  of  *^^f^  which  is  certainly  intended  also  by 
the  author,  i.  e.,  disposition  (Gesinnung,  so  Syriac),  but  the 
later,  new-Hebrew  significance  of  this  word :  *  the  impulse  to 
good  or  to  evil.'  "  And  on  17  :  6  he  says  that  Sia/3ov\Lov 
"cannot,  however,  here,  as  in  15  :  14,  designate  freedom  of 
choice,  but  perhaps  reflection  (Ueberlegung.  Luther,  Ver- 
nunft)."  But  surely  freedom  of  will  is  not  a  translation  of 
1)^^  in  its  rabbinical  sense.  And  if  the  Hebrew  author 
meant  to  use  the  word  in  the  older  sense  of  disposition,  why 
does  not  Ryssel  so  translate  it?  The  Greek  translation, 
by  the  writer's  grandson,  was  probably  made  in  132  b.  c. 
(Schiirer).  Does  Ryssel  mean  that  the  Old  Testament  mean- 
ing of  7/eper  prevailed  until  after  190  b.  c.  and  the  late 
rabbinical  meaning  from  some  time  before  132  b.  c.  onward  ? 
Neither  Edersheim  nor  Ryssel  makes  clear  his  views  at 
these  points,  nor  the  grounds  of  them. 

What  does  the  sentence  itself  in  its  connection  mean? 
The  writer,  like  James  1  :  13  ff.,  after  him,  is  arguing 
against  those  who  would  ascribe  their  sin  to  God  (i.  e.,  to 
their  nature  as  God  made  them,  or  to  circumstances  which 
God  ordained?).  God  would  not  make  what  he  hates  (so  also 
Wisd.  11  :  24).  Yet  sin  is  a  fact  in  God's  creation.  How 
is  it  to  be  accounted  for  without  making  God  morally  re- 
sponsible for  it?  The  answer  is:  God  created  man  and 
gave  him  into  the  hand  of  his  spoiler,  i.  e.,  his  i/eper,  an  evil 
disposition  or  inclination  which  has  power  over  him.  But 
if  men  choose  they  may  keep  the  commandment,  obey  God's 
will,  not  their  own  yeger.  Two  things  are  put  before  them, 
the  yeger  and  the  Law.  These  are  the  fire  and  water,  the 
death  and  life  between  which  men  must  choose.  The  Hlif*  is 
not  the  free  will,  but  man  is  free  to  choose  between  this  evil 
nature  or  disposition  in  him  and  the  Law.  This  is  the  rab- 
binical meaning  of  the  word  yeger ^  which  stands  over  against 


140  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  law  as  a  power  of  sin,  strong  but  never  overpowering 
man's  will.  Only  in  this  sense  is  the  word  properly  parallel 
to  the  "spoiler  "  of  the  preceding  line. 

But  does  not  this  make  God  responsible  for  sin?  In  a 
sense  it  does,  and  so  did  both  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
author  of  our  book.  See  11  :  14-16, ^  "Good  things  and 
evil,  life  and  death,  poverty  and  riches  are  of  the  Lord.  .  .  . 
Sin  and  upright  ways  are  from  the  Lord;  "  but  (here  is  his 
theodicy)  "folly  and  darkness  are  created  for  the  wicked, 
etc."     See  further  39  :  13-35. 

Now  what  of  the  Greek  translator?  His  Bca/SovXLov  does 
not  render  the  original  meaning  of  yeger,  but  means,  prac- 
tically, freedom  of  will  (deliberation  or  determination)  as 
Ryssel  renders  it.  Taking  the  word  in  this  sense  and  so 
interpreting  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  he  cannot  do  anything 
but  omit  the  second  line,  which  is  now  restored  to  us.  So 
in  11  :  15  he  changed  "sin  "  to  "love,"  while  some  found  it 
easier  to  omit  w.  15-16  altogether  (so  R.  V.  with  the  best 
MSS.).  In  17  :  6  the  translator  could  well  have  given  the 
same  meaning  to  1')£\  read  as  a  noun,  and  put  deliberation 
or  purpose  among  the  powers  with  which  God  endowed  man. 

If  our  understanding  of  yeper  in  15  :  14  is  right,  the  word 
was  already  used,  in  the  evil  sense,  to  explain  man's  ten- 
dency to  sin  in  a  way  consistent  with  monotheism,  since 
God  put  men  in  its  power,  and  yet  consistent  with  legalism, 
since  man  is  able  to  choose  God's  will.  God  created  him, 
and  put  him  in  the  hand  of  an  evil  disposition,  but  "  did  not 
command  a  man  to  sin  "  (v.  20).  Nor  is  it  only  by  sheer 
choice  of  the  law  that  men  are  saved ;  for  the  writer  can  also 
say:  "If  thou  trust  in  him  thou  shalt  even  live.  "^ 

Next  in  importance  is  a  sentence,  21  :  11a,  not  yet  recov- 
ered in  Hebrew,  but  already  rightly  amended  on  the  basis  of 
the  Syriac  by  Edersheim.  The  Greek  is,  6  (f)v\d<ra-cov  vofjuov 
KaraKparet  rov  ivvorifiaTo<;  avrov  (R.  V.,  He  that  keepeth  the 
law  becometh  master  of  the  intent  thereof).    The  Syriac  gives 

*  Hebrew  in  Jewish  Quar.  Rev.,  xii.  466  £E, 
2  Only  in  Hebr.    Cf.  Isa.  26  : 3. 


THE   YECER  HARA  141 

as  the  undoubted  original,  He  that  keeps  the  law  gets  the  mas- 
tery over  his  yeger.  Fritzsche  already  rendered  the  Greek,  be- 
machtigt  sich  seiner  Gedanken,  or  beherrscht  seine  Gedanken. 
The  Greek  translator's  choice  of  ivvorjfia  renders  it  doubtful 
whether  he  meant,  "  becomes  wise, "  or  "  masters  the  thought 
or  inner  meaning  of  the  Law."  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
about  the  meaning  of  the  author.  In  this  passage  Edersheim 
translates  the  word  by  "inclination,"  and  speaks  of  it  as  used 
"in  the  peculiar  sense  of  '^V^"  i.  e.,  in  the  rabbinical  sense; 
and  Ryssel  follows  with  "Trieb,"  so  that  what  seemed  to  be 
implied  by  their  comments  on  15  :  14  could  not  have  been 
meant  to  apply  to  the  history  of  the  development  of  the 
rabbinical  sense  of  the  word,  but  only  to  the  interpretation 
of  that  verse.  In  fact,  it  is  unmistakably  the  so-called  rab- 
binical sense  of  the  term  that  meets  us  here.  Indeed  one  of 
the  most  important  rabbinical  sayings  about  the  yeger  can  be 
regarded  either  as  a  parallel  to  this  or  as  a  free  citation  of 
it :  "I  created  the  evil  yeger;  I  created  for  it  the  Law  as  a 
remedy.  If  ye  are  occupied  with  the  law  ye  shall  not  be 
delivered  into  its  hand."^  The  expression  "masters  his 
yeger''''   occurs,  e.g.,    in   Aboth,    4  :  2   (tJ^DD),  in   Berach., 

The  next  passage  is  one  in  which  the  word  was  not  sus- 
pected: Hebr.  6  :  22<"(2)=  Qr.  27  :  5-6.  Taylor  translates: 
"A  potter's  (IVV) vessel  is  for  the  furnace  to  bake  (?);  And 
like  unto  it,  a  man  is  according  to  his  thought  (7^;  ^^i^ 
lilDJ^n).  Upon  the  bough  ( ?)  of  a  tree  will  belts  fruit;  So 
the  thought  of  a  man  is  according  to  his  mind  (?)  (/^  TIDt^*!! 
"inK  n^')."  This  follows  Schechter's  text,  but  both  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Versions  read  m^^,  labor,  tillage,  or  hus- 
bandry, not  r\1^^,  Aram,  bough,  as  Schechter  emends. 
There  seems  no  good  reason  for  the  emendation.  Greek  and 
Syriac  read  D"1N  for  IIIJ^.  We  may  therefore  read:  Ac- 
cording to  the  husbandry  of  the  tree  will  be  its  fruit;  So 
the  thought  is  according  to  the  yeger  of  man.  With  doubts 
regarding  the  text  go  difficulties  in  the  interpretation.  The 
1  Kiddttsfiin  SO*.    See  above  p.  127,  and  Cowley-Neubauer,  p.  xxiii. 


142  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Greek  translator  seems  to  have  got  the  meaning  of  the  first 
verse,  but  missed  that  of  the  second.  A  potter's  vessel  is 
both  tested  and  made  by  the  fire,  so  a  man  is  tested  by  his 
inner  thought,  it  is  this  that  both  tries  and  makes  him  (cf. 
Prov.  23  :  7).  If  now  the  second  verse  follows  in  this  direc- 
tion we  might  understand  the  thought  to  be :  The  husbandry 
of  a  tree,  i.  e.,  the  digging  and  pruning,  both  tests  the  life 
of  the  tree  and  is  the  condition  of  its  fruitfulness.  So  the 
thought-life  of  man  is  tested  and  developed  by  the  ye^er^ 
which  like  the  fire  of  the  potter's  furnace  and  like  the  labor 
of  the  husbandman  is  severe  and  may  prove  destructive,  but 
is  essential  to  the  making  of  a  vessel  and  the  growing  of 
fruit.  A  man  is  tested  and  made  not  by  appearances  or 
deeds  but  by  his  thought  or  reasoning,  and  his  thought  is 
tested  and  made  to  be  of  worth  by  the  evil  inclinations 
within  him,  i.  e.,  by  moral  struggle.^  If  this  is  the  thought 
of  the  passage,  the  word  yeger  means  here  what  it  means  in 
15  :  14  and  21  :  11.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  meaning  is 
that  behind  the  man  is  his  thought,  and  behind  or  beneath 
his  thought  (sustaining  it  as  the  bough  sustains  the  fruit?) 
is  his  yeger,  then  yeger  must  mean  nature,  the  fundamental 
character  or  tendency  of  each  man,  whether  good  or  bad. 
The  former  sense,  however,  answers  better  to  the  comparison 
of  the  potter's  vessel,  to  the  actually  attested  reading  in  v. 
6,  and  to  the  other  uses  of  the  word.  The  yeger  is  the  labor 
which  gives  man  his  moral  discipline  and  cultivation;  not 
man's  own  labor,  but,  ultimately,  God's. 

The  Greek  renders  yeger  here,  as  in  1  Chronicles  28 :  9, 
by  €vdv/j,r)fj,a,   or  ivOvfiTjfxa  KapBia<i. 

The  next  passage,  17  :  31,  is  one  in  which  the  use  of  the 
word  yeger  is  made  probable  by  the  Syriac,  but  the  Hebrew 
text  is  not  yet  recovered.  The  Greek  reads,  "What  is 
brighter  than  the  sun?  yet  this  faileth;  And  an  evil  man 
will   think   on   flesh   and    blood "  (kuI  irovqpo';    evOv^irjaerai, 

1  Cf.  the  verse  which  precedes  in  Greek  (27  :  4),  "  When  the  sieve  is  shaken 
the  refuse  remains ;  so  the  filth  of  man  is  in  his  reasoning  "  (\oyiiTn6s),  which  also 
has  to  do  with  the  testing  of  man. 


THE   YECER  HARA  143 

adpKa  Kol  alfjLa).  The  Syriac  renders,  "  When  the  sun  after 
the  end  of  a  bright  day  goes  down,  even  it  is  darkened.  So 
the  man  who  does  not  subdue  his  yeger  because  he  is  flesh 
and  blood."  This  suggests  that  the  Greek  took  ^'^'>  as  a 
verb  and  rendered  it  by  ivOvfjurjaerai.  Horowitz  (Frankel's 
Monatschr.,  XIV,)  suggested  as  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew, 
"  How  much  more  the  thoughts  (niDC^IlD)  of  man  who  is 
flesh  and  blood,"  or  "How  much  more  the  evil  i/eper  of  man 
who  is  flesh  and  blood."  As  the  use  of  7/eger  is  favored  by 
the  Syriac  and  would  account  for  the  Greek,  it  is  preferred 
by  Ryssel,  who,  however,  puts  dvrjp  o?  in  the  place  of 
7rov7)p6'i,  and  reads.  How  much  more  man,  whose  impulse 
{yeger  [=  nature?])  is  flesh  and  blood. ^  He  suggests  that 
Syr.,  because  it  seemed  strange  to  say  that  the  yeger  of  man 
is  flesh  and  blood,  assumed  that  ^OD  N7  had  fallen  out. 

One  is  not  inclined,  at  present,  to  put  great  weight  upon 
conjectural  restorations  of  the  text  of  Sirach.  The  bearing  of 
the  passage  upon  the  conception  of  the  yeger  would  depend 
upon  which  one  of  the  reconstructions  we  adopt.  The  con- 
text suggests  that  man,  not  sinful  man,  is  spoken  of.  In  no 
case  does  the  association  of  the  yeger  with  flesh  and  blood 
imply  its  connection  with  the  body  in  contrast  to  the  soul, 
for  flesh  and  blood  is  only  the  familiar  phrase  for  man  him- 
self (cf.  14  :  18).  The  possibility  that  the  yeger  is  here 
called  "evil"  is  to  be  recognized. 

The  next  passage  is  one  in  which  the  Greek  seems  to  imply 
the  word  yeger ^  but  the  Hebrew  does  not  contain  it.  In 
37  :  3,  speaking  of  false  friends,  the  writer  exclaims,  "  O 
wicked  imagination  (w  irovqpov  ivdvfjbrjfxa),  whence  camest 
thou  rolling  in  to  cover  the  dry  land  with  deceitf ulness. " 
Ryssel  supposed  the  original  to  be:  Jm7;ij  ilJ^"*?!^  VI  *lV* 
and  translated,  O  thou  evil  (human)  nature !  Wherefore  hast 
thou  rolled  in  (like  a  flood),  etc.  The  Syriac  reads:  Hatred 
and  evil,  why  were  they  created,  etc. ;  ^  and  hence  does  not 
confirm  the  use  of  yeger.     The  Hebrew  text  is  unfortunately 

^  Dm  iK^a  nr  ityx  m^a  o  f]K 
^  nanx  wdS  NB^'ai  kkjd 


144  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

blurred  in  the  first  lialf  of  the  line  {Jewish  Quarterly  Bev., 
XII.  p.  8),  but  G.  Margoliouth  reconstructs  as  follows: 
♦n"li*"lJ  ]D  ^nO  ODNtr  1^1  in) and  translates  "(Alas!  for 
a  friend  who  says)  Why  have  I  thus  been  created,"  with  the 
remark,  "Not  a  satisfactory  clause;  but  the  Hebrew,  going 
by  the  remaining  portions  of  the  letters,  must  be  read  as 
in  the  text "  (p.  18).  Schechter  confirms  this  reading,  and 
Levi's  text,  called  D  in  the  Facsimiles,  finally  establishes 
it.  Schechter  suggests  that  Syr.  read  llJ^^t^  (hatred),  for 
nONi:';  and  that  Greek  misread  tl^^)l  (from  t^n)  for 
n"lV1-3  (do.  p.  270).  Levi's  text,  however,  is  pointed  thus: 
nOK^  ^1  ^in^  Woe  to  the  wicked  (who)  says.  Levi  pre- 
fers the  Greek,  and  supposes  the  Hebrew  to  have  run  thus : 
*)i^»  ^1  ^in-  "O  wickedness  of  the  i/e^er^  why  wast  thou 
created  ?  "  (ni V1J  with  a  play  on  the  word  11^^).  He  sug- 
gests that  the  original  1V^  became  lON^  in  our  copy,  and 
was  read  as  "1^1  by  the  Syriac  trg,nslator.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  our  Hebrew  texts  represent  the  original  at  this  point, 
the  Greek  translator  must  have  read  IV  for  "IDNIJ^,  or  *)0}<% 
perhaps  by  conjecture,  and  it  is  only  to  him  and  not  to  the 
Hebrew  author  that  we  can  ascribe  this  anticipation  of  the 
question  so  deeply  felt  by  the  author  of  Fourth  Ezra  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  evil  power  in  man's  nature.  Perhaps,  after 
15  :  14  we  should  not  expect  our  author  to  ask  the  question. 
He  did  not  feel  the  difficulty  of  ascribing  the  yeger  directly  to 
God,  and  seeing  its  good  end,  evil  though  it  was  in  itself. 
So  the  figure  of  the  potter,  just  discussed  (27  :  5  =  Hebr. 
6  :  22'^>),  is  developed  further  of  God's  relation  to  man  in 
33  :  13,  in  a  passage  that  emphasizes  God's  authorship  of 
evil  as  well  as  good,  all  his  works  being  two  and  two,  one 
against  another  (v.  15). 

It  is  possible  that  the  recovery  of  the  Hebrew  would  reveal 
the  word  in  other  passages  (e.  g.,  23  :  2  8 cav6i]fia') or  would 
restore  to  the  text  such  verses  as  17  :  16,  21  ("Knowing 
their  irXda-fxa "  =  Ps.  103  :  14).  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Hebrew  in  5  :  4  is  like  the  Greek,  and  the  rabbinical  saying 


THE    YECER   HARA  145 

cited  by  Cowley-Neubauer  (p.  xix.),  "If  the  evil  yeger  say  to 
thee,  Sin,  for  the  Holy  One  excuseth,  do  not  believe,"  is 
independent  of  Sirach  at  least  in  form  (Bacher,  Amor.,  III. 
578). 

Allowing  for  all  remaining  uncertainties  we  have  definite 
proof  of  the  use  of  the  word  yeger,  almost  two  centuries 
before  Christ,  in  the  rabbinical  sense.  For  the  later  doctrine 
is  essentially  a  fuller  and  varied  expression  of  the  thought 
of  Sir.  15  :  14  as  to  the  source  of  sin  in  man,  and  God's 
relation  to  it,  and  of  Sir.  21  :  11  as  to  the  means  by  which 
it  is  to  be  overcome.  The  current  view,  that  the  doctrine 
was  shaped  or  modified  under  Greek  influence,  and  that  it  is 
post-Christian  in  its  development  proves  to  be  at  both  points 
erroneous. 

The  limits  of  this  essay  exclude  the  effort  to  trace  in  detail 
the  development  of  the  conception  of  the  yeger  between  Sirach 
and  the  rabbinical  literature.  Since  the  word  had  no  Greek 
equivalent  and  no  uniform  Greek  rendering,  and  since  the 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  writings  of  the  period  are  known  to 
us  for  the  most  part  only  in  Greek,  or  in  oriental  or  Latin 
versions  of  the  Greek,  the  use  of  the  word  is  naturally 
obscure. 

It  seems  certain  that  the  Greek  idea  of  the  material  body 
as  the  seat  and  source  of  sin  gained  difficult  and  limited 
access  to  the  Jewish  mind.  Even  among  Greek-speaking 
Jews  this  conception,  so  contradictory  to  Old  Testament 
religion,  and  so  dangerous  to  monotheism,  could  have  gained 
few  thoroughly  consistent  adherents.  Even  Philo  may  be 
defended,  as  he  is  by  Drummond,^  from  a  consistently  anti- 
Jewish  development  of  his  Greek  belief  in  the  eternity  of 
matter,  and  its  evil  power.  The  Wisdom  of  Solomon  accepts 
creation  out  of  formless  matter  (11  :  17),  and  the  idea  that 
the  corruptible  body  weighs  down  the  soul,  and  the  earthly 
frame  lies  heavy  on  the  mind,  making  a  knowledge  even  of 
earthly  things  difficult  and   of   heavenly  things  impossible, 

1  Philo  Judaeus,  I.  297-313, 11,  296-306. 
10 


146  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

without  divine  help  (9  :  13-18).  The  author  believes  in  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  and  in  this  shows  the  large  influence 
of  Greek  modes  of  thought  upon  him.  Yet  on  the  other 
hand  he  can  speak  of  wisdom  as  entering  into  the  soul,  and 
dwelling  in  the  body,  in  parallel  clauses  (1  :  4),  and  the  pas- 
sage often  cited  to  prove  his  acceptance  of  the  idea  of  the 
pre-existence  of  the  soul  (8  :  19-20)  can  hardly  bear  such  a 
weight.  The  birth  of  the  wise  king  is  described  first  as  if  he 
were  the  goodly  body  that  received  by  lot  a  good  soul,  and 
then  by  a  better  afterthought,  as  if  he  were  the  good  soul 
that  came  into  a  pure  body.  This  involves  a  dualistic  psy- 
chology, but  the  pre-existence  of  the  soul  is  hardly  implied 
except  in  the  sense  in  which  the  body  also  pre-existed  before 
birth.  Sin  and  virtue  are  everywhere  properties  and  func- 
tions of  the  soul. 


2.    The  Apocalypse  of  Ezra 

The  most  serious  and  even  impassioned  struggle  with  the 
problem  of  sin  and  evil  from  a  Jew  of  this  period  is  re- 
corded in  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra,  2  Esdras,  chs.  3-14,  in  our 
Apocrypha.^  The  conception  of  the  "wicked  heart"  in  this 
book  is  obviously  allied  to  that  of  the  ye^er.  Various  and 
striking  points  of  contact  are  also  evident  between  the  mind 
and  experience  of  the  writer  and  that  of  Paul.  So  that  this 
book  deserves  especially  close  study,  for  an  explanation  of 
the  Jewish  element  in  Paul's  thought.  The  problems  pre- 
sented by  the  book  are,  however,  far  too  difficult  and  involved 
to  permit  of  an  attempt  here  to  discuss  them  in  detail. 

1  Commonly  cited  as  4  Ezra.  Texts  :  The  Latin  in  the  Bensly-James  edition, 
1895;  other  versions  and  an  attempted  reconstruction  of  the  Greek  from  which 
they  were  made,  by  Hilgenfeld,  Messias  Judaeoruin,  1869;  commentaries  by 
Lupton  (Wace's  Apocrypha,  1888),  and  Gunkcl  (Kautzsch's  Pseiidepigraphen, 
1901).  Introductory  discussions  by  Schiirer  (History)  and  Kabisch  {IV,  Ezra, 
Gottingen,  1889).  I  assume  the  substantial  unity  of  the  book  (Gunkel,  against 
Kabisch  and  Charles) ;  the  probability  of  a  Hebrew  original  (Wellhausen, 
Charles,  Gunkel) ;  the  improbability  of  positive  Christian  influence  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  book  (Schiirer,  Gunkel,  against  Edersheim,  Charles). 


THE   YECER  HARA  147 

According  to  this  writer  Adam  transgressed  and  was  over- 
come because  he  had  a  wicked  heart  {cor  malignum),^  and  so 
all  who  were  born  of  him  (3  :  21).  "A  grain  of  evil  seed" 
(ffranum  seminis  mail)  was  sown  in  the  heart  of  Adam  from 
the  beginning,  and  how  much  (fruit  of)  ^  wickedness  has  it 
brought  forth  until  now,  and  will  bring  forth  until  the 
threshing  come  (4  :  30,  cf.  31).  It  is  hardly  correct  to  say 
that,  through  Adam's  sin,  "  a  hereditary  tendency  to  sin  was 
created,  and  the  cor  malignum  developed  "  (Charles,  Apoca- 
lypse of  Baruch^  p.  Ixx.).  The  evil  heart  explains  Adam's 
sin,  but  is  not  explained  by  it.  Men  continued  to  do  even  as 
Adam  did  because  they  also  had  the  wicked  heart  (3  :  26). 
Adam's  sin  had  indeed  fateful  consequences.  The  decree  of 
death,  and  the  sorrowful  and  toilsome  nature  of  the  present 
world  {saeculum  =  alcov)  are  attributed  to  it  (3  :  7;  7  :  11, 
12).  "  O  thou,  what  hast  thou  done,  Adam  ?  for  when  thou 
didst  sin  there  came  to  pass  not  thy  fall  only  but  also  ours 
who  came  from  thee  "  (7  :  118).  Evil  is  traced  to  Adam's 
sin,  but  his  sin  is  itself  traced  to  an  evil  seed  sown  in  his  heart 
from  the  beginning,  which  has  indeed  grown  and  is  called 
a  root  {radix  =  pl^a,  8  :  53;  cf.  3  :  22).  Whence  then  came 
the  wicked  heart?  The  prophet's  angel  guide  promises  an 
answer  to  the  question  (4  :  4),  but  the  answer  is  not  easy 
to  find. 

Kabisch  argues  that  the  evil  heart  is  seated  in  the  body, 
on  several  unconvincing  grounds.  It  cannot  be,  he  says,  in 
the  spirit  of  life  from  God,  and  hence  must  be  in  the  dust  of 
which  the  body  is  formed  (3  :  4-5).  But  it  may  be  in  man, 
who  is  not  a  juxtaposition  of  these  two,  but  a  new  creation 
out  of  them.  The  evil  heart  is  inherited,  Kabisch  says,  and 
must  therefore  belong  to  the  body,  for  souls  pre-exist,  and 
come  in  ever  anew  out  of  the  upper  world  (p.  23).  But 
4  :  36,  to  which  he  refers,  has  nothing  to  do  with  pre- 
existence ;  nor  does  4  :  12  prove  it,  on  which  Gunkel  remarks 
cautiously,  "  The  expression  (to  come  into  the  world)  ^  pre- 

J  vovripa.  KapS'ia.  '  Syr.    See  Gunkel. 

8  See  also  7: 132. 


148  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

supposes,  originally,  the  belief  in  the  pre-existence  of  the 
human  soul."  The  evil  heart,  Kabisch  argues,  belongs  to 
this  material  world  and  passes  away  with  it  (4  :  26-32).  But 
the  rabbis  also  taught  that  the  evil  i/eper  belongs  to  this  world 
and  not  to  the  world  to  come,  and  for  the  strain  in  which 
Kabisch  develops  his  thought  our  book  furnishes  no  warrant. 
Souls,  he  says,  cannot  do  good  so  long  as  they  carry  the 
material  body;  for  all  matter  is  infected  with  evil,  and  in  the 
world,  which  consists  of  matter,  there  can  be  no  goodness  nor 
happiness  nor  virtue  (p.  32-33).  Now  as  a  matter  of  fact  the 
evil  heart  is  never  once  expressly  connected  with  matter,  or 
the  body;  nor  in  the  many  contrasts  of  this  world  (saeculum) 
with  the  next  do  the  ideas  of  materiality  and  immateriality 
appear.  The  nearest  approach  to  them  is  in  the  frequent 
references  to  corruption  and  incorruption  as  characterizing 
the  two  worlds.  It  is  true  that  the  book  is  strongly  dualistic 
in  its  contrast  of  the  two  worlds  (7  :  50),  and  also  that  it 
contains  a  somewhat  marked  dualistic  anthropology.  In 
7  :  88  the  death  of  the  righteous  is  described  as  separation 
from  the  corruptible  vessel,  and  the  un-Hebraic  conception 
of  death  in  7  :  75-101  is  significant.  But  in  spite  of  this 
the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  book,  the  origin  of  sin  and 
evil,  is  not  found  in  matter  and  its  inherent  properties.  The 
great  debate,  which  makes  up  the  book,  between  the  author's 
Jewish  faith,  on  the  one  side,  voiced  by  the  angel,  and  his 
doubts  on  the  other,  between  his  mind  and  his  feelings,  his 
convictions  and  his  sympathies  and  fears,  turns  on  the  ques- 
ntion  whether  God  or  man  is  responsible  for  the  sorrow  and 
sin  of  this  world,  and  the  torments  of  the  next.  No  third 
agent  is  summoned  in,  not  Satan  or  any  spirit-power,  not  an 
eternal  matter  which  conditions  God  in  creation.  Indeed 
our  writer  seems  expressly  to  exclude  any  such  outside 
agency.  His  monotheism  is  emphatic.  God's  entire  re- 
sponsibility for  man's  creation  is  set  forth  at  the  beginning 
(3  :  4-5),  and  often  urged,  and  that  in  terms  which  expressly 
include  the  body  (8  :  7-14,  24). 

If  it  is  said  that  the  earth  {terra)  or  dust  brought  man 


THE    YECER   HARA  149 

forth,  yet  it  is  at  God's  command  (3:4;  5  :  48,  60-55; 
6  :  53;  7  :  63,  116;  10  :  9-14),  and  the  earth,  the  mother  of 
man,  is  itself  made  by  God  (11  :  46),  and  has  its  own  sorrow 
(10  :  9£e.)  and  hope  (11  :  46).  Chaos  itself  (Gen.  1  :  1)  was 
created  by  God  (6  :  SS'',  Gunkel).  God  and  he  alone  planned 
and  made  and  will  consummate  all  (5  :  56  —  6  :  6). 

Nor  can  evil  be  ascribed  to  malignity  in  the  all-ruling  God. 
His  love  to  Israel  and  to  man  far  exceeds  that  of  the  prophet 
who  protests  against  his  ways  (5  :  33,  40;  8  :  47). 

Is  it  then  God  who  sowed  the  grain  of  evil  seed  in  Adam's 
heart  from  the  beginning  ?  Who  else  could  it  be  ?  Yet  this 
is  not  expressly  said.  The  prophet  does  indeed  ask  why 
God  did  not  restrain  men  from  wilfulness  and  sin  (3  :  8); 
why  he  did  not  take  away  the  wicked  heart  from  Israel  when 
he  gave  him  the  law  (3  :  20) ;  why  earth  produced  Adam  at 
all  if  it  were  not  to  restrain  him  from  sinning  (7  :  116). 
Yet  the  tendency  of  the  angel's  replies  is  always  to  put  the 
responsibility  for  sin  upon  man.  The  solution  which  the 
book  offers,  so  far  as  one  is  reached,  is  Jewish,  and  not  Greek 
or  Indian.     In  this  solution  three  points  are  clear.  [ 

a.  God  implanted  in  the  heart  of  Israel  his  law.  "  I  sow  ' 
my  law  in  you,  and  it  shall  bring  forth  fruit  in  you  "  (9  :  31). 
The  writer  feels  the  problem  of  the  condition  of  the  rest  of 
mankind,  but  assents  to  the  proposition  that  the  world  is 
made  for  Israel  (6  :  55;  9  :  13).  But  for  Israel  also  the 
law  has  not  proved  able  to  produce  its  fruit.  "  Yet  tookest 
thou  not  away  from  them  the  wicked  heart  that  thy  law 
might  bring  forth  fruit  in  them  .  .  .  and  the  law  was  in  the 
heart  of  the  people  along  with  the  wickedness  of  the  root ;  so 
the  good  departed  away  and  that  which  was  wicked  abode 
still "  (3  :  20,  22).  "There  has  grown  up  in  us  an  evil  heart 
(cor  malnni),  which  has  alienated  us  from  these  (statutes) 
and  brought  us  into  corruption  and  into  the  ways  of  death, 
showed  us  the  paths  of  perdition,  and  made  us  far  from  life ; 
and  this  not  a  few  but  almost  all  that  have  been  created  " 
(7  :48;  cf.  9:31-37). 

b.  To  this  difficulty  faith  answers  with  a  second'  vindica- 


150  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

tion  of  God.  Man  is  free  and  can  escape  the  power  of  the 
evil  heart.  It  is  true  that  the  writer  feels  difficulty  in 
assenting  to  this  essential  dogma  of  a  legal  religion,  but  Mr. 
Charles  is  surely  wrong  in  ascribing  to  him  even  a  practical 
denial  of  human  freedom  (p.  Ixx.).  He  assumes  that  some 
obey  the  law.  His  lament  is  that  they  are  so  few  (7  :  48-61 ; 
8  :  1,  3;  9  :  14-16,  etc.).  In  one  mood  he  does  indeed  de- 
clare all  men  sinners  (7  :  46,  68;  8  :  35),  but  he  does  not 
mean  this  literally.  ^  He  is  assured  against  his  fears  that  he 
is  himself  righteous  and  will  attain  salvation.^  He  insists 
upon  man's  freedom  and  responsibility, ^  and  if  it  is  hard 
to  keep  the  divine  law,  yet  the  reward  is  all  the  greater 
(7  :  127-131). 

The  first  of  seven  reasons  for  the  joy  of  righteous  souls 
after  death  is  "  because  with  much  labor  they  have  striven  to 
conquer  the  evil  thought  formed  with  them,  that  it  should 
not  seduce  them  from  life  unto  death  "  (7  :  92).  In  this 
expression  cum  eis  plasmatum  cogitamentum  malum  we  may 
with  great  probability  recognize  the  word  yeger  itself  (Gun- 
kel).  The  effort  to  conquer  the  evil  heart  may  be  made 
effectual  through  prayer  (8:6). 

c.  Yet  the  writer  is  perplexed  and  distressed  at  the  diffi- 
culty of  keeping  the  law,  and  must  resort  to  a  third  vindica- 
tion of  God,  —  the  promise  that  in  the  coming  age  the  evil 
heart  will  be  taken  away.  "  The  Most  High  has  not  created 
one  world  but  two  "  (7  :  49),  is  the  answer  to  the  lament 
over  the  evil  heart  (v.  48).  The  evil  that  is  sown  must  be 
reaped,  and  the  place  where  it  is  sown  pass  away,  before  the 
field  can  come  where  the  good  is  sown  (4  :  29).  Before  the 
end,  Elijah,  and  others  like  him,  will  change  the  heart  of 
men  to  a  different  nature  (6  :  26) ;  and  the  "  root "  will  be 
sealed  up  for  those  for  whom  the  time  to  come  is  prepared 
(8  :  53).      That  the  new  age  is  near  at  hand  is  sometimes 

1  See  e.  g.,  3  :  11,  36,  7  :  18,  21-24,  45,  46;  8  :  26-30,  33. 

2  See  7:76-77,  8:48  ff.;  10:57;  13  :  54-56,  and  compare  7  :48,  64,  118,  126  ; 
8:17,31. 

«  See  7  :  20-24,  72  f . ;  8  :  56-62  ;  9  :  7-13  ;  14  :  22,  34  f. 


THE   YECER  HARA  151 

the  fear,  but  in  general  the  consolation  of  the  writer  and  the 
practical  solution  of  his  problem. 

Now  these  three  lines  of  escape  from  the  problem  of  the 
evil  heart  are  precisely  like  the  rabbinical  treatment  of  the 
evil  yeger.  This  is  offset  by  the  law  which  God  gave  Israel ; 
men  are  free  to  obey  the  law  in  spite  of  the  acknowledged 
power  of  the  evil  propensity;  and  God  will  hereafter  remove 
it,  change  men's  hearts  (Ezek.  36  :  26),  and  bring  in  an  age 
to  which  the  evil  does  not  belong. 

Yet  the  origin  of  the  evil  heart  is  not  explained  by  these 
considerations  of  the  ways  of  escape.  We  have  seen  that  the 
rabbis  sometimes  resorted  to  the  extreme  expedient  of  say- 
ing that  God  repented  having  made  it,  and  there  is  even  some 
suggestion  that  its  rise  or  at  least  its  dominance  was  a  sur- 
prise to  him.     There  is  a  hint  of  this  sort  in  4  Ezra. 

God's  fashioning  of  sinners  and  of  the  righteous,  says  the 
angel,  is  like  the  husbandman's  sowing  much  seed  and  plant- 
ing many  trees.  Not  all  that  is  sown  is  saved,  and  not  all 
that  is  planted  takes  root.  So  they  that  are  sown  in  the 
world  shall  not  all  be  saved  (8  :  38-41).  But  the  prophet 
finds  fault  with  the  parable.  The  husbandman's  work  fails 
because  God  sends  too  little  or  too  much  rain.  Furthermore, 
men,  in  God's  image,  are  not  to  be  compared  with  the  hus- 
bandman's seed  (8  :  42-45). 

Yet  again  the  figure  is  used.  God  speaks  of  the  time  of 
creation  when  none  spoke  against  him,  and  adds,  "  But  now 
they  that  are  created  in  this  world  that  is  prepared  .  .  .  are 
corrupted  in  their  manners.  I  considered  my  world,  and 
behold  it  was  ruined,  and  my  earth,  and  behold  it  was  in 
peril  on  account  of  the  devices  (cogitationes)  (of  those)  ^  that 
had  come  into  it.  And  I  saw  .  .  .  and  saved  me  a  grape 
out  of  a  cluster,  and  a  plant  out  of  a  great  forest.  Let  the 
multitude  therefore  perish  which  is  born  for  naught,  and  let 
my  grape  be  saved  and  my  plant,  because  with  great  labor  I 
have  perfected  them"  (9  :  17-25).  It  is  as  if  evil  had  come 
in  from  without,  and  spoiled  the  plan,  so  that  the  salvation 

1  So  Gunkel. 


152  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

of  a  few  (Israel,  or  the  righteous  in  Israel)  was  all  that  God 
could  do.  Yet  it  is  man  and  not  matter  or  evil  spirit  to 
whom  the  disturbance  is  traced.     So  also  in  8  :  59-60. 

In  Fourth  Ezra,  then,  we  have  a  certain  dualistic  element, 
Greek,  or  perhaps  rather  Oriental  in  origin,  but  in  spite  of 
what  must  have  seemed  to  the  writer  the  great  temptation  to 
find  escape  from  his  unsolved  problems  in  the  acceptance  of 
an  evil  principle  inherent  in  the  corruptible  substance  of  this 
world,  his  view  of  evil  remains  substantially  Jewish,  i.  e., 
monotheistic,  and  ethical  in  the  legalistic  sense  of  that  word. 

The  question  whether  the  word  ye^.er  occurred  elsewhere 
in  the  book  upon  the  assumption  of  a  Hebrew  original  (e.  g., 
in  14  :  34,  sensus)  can  hardly  be  answered.  Nor  does  any 
very  simple  reason  suggest  itself  why  the  word  "heart "  was 
preferred  by  this  writer,  unless  it  is  because,  like  Jeremiah, 
feeling  the  sinfulness  of  man  to  be  deep-seated,  he  preferred 
to  ascribe  it  directly  to  the  inner  self,  the  rational  and  moral  na- 
ture itself,  and  not  to  one  of  the  propensities  of  that  nature. 

3.    The  Apocalypse  of  Baruch 

In  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,^  which  stands  in  some  as  yet 
undetermined  literary  relation  to  Fourth  Ezra,  the  effects  of 
Adam's  sin  are  often  spoken  of,^  but  the  "evil  heart"  is 
noticeably  absent.  Mr.  Charles  affirms  that  this  book  teaches 
the  thoroughly  Jewish  doctrine  of  free  will  and  individual  re- 
sponsibility in  spite  of  Adam's  sin ;  while  Fourth  Ezra  contains 
a  partly  Christianized  doctrine  of  man's  "  practical  incapacity 
for  righteousness  in  consequence  of  his  original  defects  or 
Adam's  sin  "  (p.  92-93).  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether 
Baruch  ascribes  less  serious  results  to  Adam's  sin  than  does 
Fourth  Ezra  (48:  42;  54:  14-15,  19 ;  56 :  6) ;  and  on  the  other 
hand  Fourth  Ezra  does  not  deny  man's  freedom  and  responsi- 
bility, even  though  it  does  not  explicitly  affirm  that  "  each  one 

^  Charles,  Apocalypse  of  Baruch,  1896.  Ryssel  in  Kautzsch's  Pseudipi- 
graphen,  1900. 

2  4:3;  17:2-3;  18  :  2  ;  19  :  8 ;  23  :  4 ;  48  :  42,  43,  46 ;  54  :  15,  19 ;  56 :  5, 
6,  10. 


THE    YECER  HARA  153 

> 

of  us  has  been  the  Adam  of  his  own  soul "  (Ap.  Bar.  54:  19). 
The  principal  difference  between  the  two  writers  at  this  point 
is  that  while  Ezra,  with  a  deep  sense  of  sin,  feels  impelled 
to  go  back  of  the  sinful  deed  to  the  grain  of  evil  seed  planted 
in  Adam  from  the  beginning,  which  explains  though  it  does 
not  really  excuse  sin,  Baruch  is  satisfied  to  deal  with  sin  as  a 
fact  and  with  its  consequences  in  a  more  purely  legal  spirit. 
Since  men  possess  the  Law,  they  sin  knowingly,  and  are  there- 
fore justly  punished  (15  :  5-6 ;  19  :  1-4 ;  55  :  2). 

As  in  Fourth  Ezra,  the  ruling  dualism  of  the  book  is  the 
contrast  between  the  present  and  the  future  world-age.  The 
contrast  centers  in  the  thought  that  death,  sorrow,  and  cor- 
ruption mark  this  world,  and  in  increasing  measure  as  it 
grows  old  (83  :  9-23;  85  :  10;  cf.  4  Ezra  5  :  50-56;  14  : 
10),  while  the  coming  world  is  undying  and  incorruptible. 
In  it  the  present  bodily  life  will  be  not  simply  restored  (ch. 
50),  but  transformed  into  an  angelic  nature  (ch.  51).  Yet 
it  does  not  appear  that  the  writer  ascribed  sin  to  the  body,  to 
which  corruption  and  death  belong.  Even  in  49  :  3  it  is  evil,  ' 
not  sin,  that  pertains  to  the  "members  of  bonds  "  with  which 
men  are  now  clothed. ^  The  body  must,  indeed,  be  trans- 
formed, in  order  to  have  part  in  the  coming  incorruptible 
world.  But  it  would  be  an  entirely  different  thing  to  say  that 
the  soul  must  be  delivered  from  the  bondage  of  the  body  in 
order  to  escape  sin ;  and  this  our  writer,  with  his  strict  legal- 
ism, could  never  say.  Nor  even  in  his  definition  of  the  two 
worlds  does  he  carry  his  dualism  to  a  point  that  seems  to  him 
inconsistent  with  the  creation  of  all  things  by  God.  The 
soul  does  not  pre-exist,  but  souls  are  predetermined  as  to 
number  and  place ;  and  no  chaotic  matter  precedes  and  limits 
creation  (23:  4,  5;  48:  6;  21:  4;  48:  2-8). 

The  most  surprising  thing  about  these  two  related  books  is 
not  that  Jewish  conceptions  are  displaced  in  them  by  foreign, 
but  that  the  foreign  elements  are  so  largely  adjusted  or 
subordinated  to  the  old  Jewish  view  of  the  world ;  that  men 
could  be  so  influenced  by  dualistic  conceptions  and  yet  escape 
^  The  word  is  xni?''3,  and  the  meaning  is  clear  from  51  :  16 ;  cf.  15 :  8. 


154  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

a  real  dualism.  The  two  worlds  appear  to  be  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  physical  properties,  one  being  corruptible, 
the  other  incorruptible,  one  human  and  the  other  angelic  and 
unearthly;  yet  it  is  never  said  that  one  is  physical,  material, 
and  the  other  spiritual,  immaterial.  Indeed  Baruch's  doc- 
trine of  resurrection,  like  Paul's,  denies  pure  immateriality 
(ch.  50-51).  The  contrast  of  the  worlds  remains  at  the  end 
essentially  the  Jewish  contrast  of  ages,  the  present  and  the 
coming,  interpreted  by  the  contrast  between  the  earthly  and 
the  heavenly  realms.  In  a  dualism  like  this  it  is  not  possible 
to  connect  sin  essentially  with  the  material  body  and  holiness 
with  the  soul.  The  author  of  Fourth  Ezra  would  have  had  more 
reason  for  tracing  sin  to  the  body  as  its  seat  and  source,  be- 
cause the  legalistic  doctrine  of  freedom  troubled  him  more, 
and  sin  seemed  to  him  more  inevitable.  The  writer  of 
Baruch,  on  the  other  hand,  more  often  contrasts  the  two  worlds 
in  physical  terms,  and  more  definitely  connects  the  evils  of 
this  present  age  with  the  corruptible  body.  But  neither  writer 
adopts  this  solution  of  the  problem,  although  it  has  been  too 
readily  attributed  to  them.  The  two  books  are  therefore 
especially  instructive  illustrations  of  the  deep-seated  aversion 
of  the  Hebrew  mind  to  any  theory  of  sin  which  ascribes  it  to 
the  physical  organism,  an  aversion  due  partly,  perhaps,  to  a 
non-speculative  cast  of  mind,  but  probably  more  to  the  power 
of  the  Old  Testament  over  their  religious  thinking,  and  the 
virtual  denial  of  Old  Testament  monotheism  and  ethics 
involved  in  such  a  theory. 


4.    The  Secrets  of  Enoch 

According  to  its  editor,  Mr.  Charles,  the  Slavonic  "  Secrets 
of  Enoch  "  1  contains  a  Platonic  rather  than  a  Jewish  account 
of  sin ;  but  this  will,  I  think,  prove  to  be  another  illustration 
of  a  too  ready  ascription  of   Greek   conceptions   to   Jewish 

1  Translation  by  Morfill  and  notes  by  Charles,  1896;  also  Das  slavische  He- 
nochbuch,  by  Bonwetsch,  1896. 


THE   YECER  HARA  155 

writers.  Here  we  read  of  Adam :  "  I  [God]  knew  his  nature. 
He  did  not  know  his  nature.  Therefore  his  ignorance  is  a 
woe  to  him  that  he  should  sin,  and  I  appointed  death  on 
account  of  his  sin  "  (30  :  16).  Mr.  Charles  understands  this 
to  mean  man's  ignorance  of  his  nature  with  its  good  and  evil 
impulses;  and  these  he  defines  in  a  dualistic  sense,  after 
Plato  and  Philo,  as  follows:  (1)  The  soul  was  created  orig- 
inally good.  (2)  It  was  not  predetermined  either  to  good  or 
ill  by  God,  but  left  to  mould  its  own  destiny  (see  30  :  15). 
(3)  Its  incorporation  in  a  body,  however,  with  its  necessary 
limitations,  served  to  bias  its  preferences  in  the  direction  of 
evil.i  (4)  Faithful  souls  will  hereafter  live  as  blessed,  in- 
corporeal spirits,  or,  at  all  events,  clothed  only  in  God's  glory 
(22  :  7);  for  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  body  (p.  43). 
According  to  Charles,  further,  the  writer,  like  Philo  gener- 
ally, teaches  not  an  absolute  creation  of  the  world  by  God, 
but  its  formation  out  of  pre-existing  elements. ^  But  it  is 
difficult  to  justify  this  Hellenizing  version  of  the  teachings  of 
the  book.  The  original  goodness  of  the  soul,  in  distinction 
from  the  body,  is  nowhere  taught,  but  only  the  original 
authority  and  prerogatives  of  Adam  (ch.  30-31).  The  pre- 
existence  of  the  soul  is  affirmed  in  MorjfiU's  rendering  of 
23  :  5,  "  Every  soul  was  created  eternally  before  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world."  But  Bonwetsch  renders  "prepared "  (alle 
Seelen  sind  bereitet  vor  der  Welt).^  In  other  places  the 
author  says  only  that  the  number  and  final  places  of  souls  are 
predetermined.^  The  idea  of  a  pre-existent  material  out  of 
which  God  formed  the  world  is  not  a  necessary  inference  from 
chs.  25,  26;  and  on  the  other  hand  creation  is  everywhere 
affirmed  to  be  absolute;  the  monotheism  of  the  book  is 
emphatic.^     God,  belonging  to  the  invisible  realm  (24  :  4; 

1  See  also  Charles's  Apoc.  of  Baruch,  p.  92. 

2  See  notes  on  24  :  2  ;  25  :  1-2  ;  26  :  1  ;  48  :  5  ;  65  :  1. 

3  See  Dalman,  Die  Worte  Jesu,  p.  104  ff.,  245  ff.,  on  the  relation  of  the  word 
"  prepared  "  to  the  idea  of  pre-existence. 

*  49:  2;  53:  2  (?);  58:  5;  61:  2;  just  as  in  Ap.  Bar.  23:  4,  5;  48:  6  ;  4  Ezra 
4  :  36,  37. 

6  2:2;  32:1";  33:3-4,  7-8;  34:  1;  36:  1;  47  :3fE.;  58:  1;  66:4-5;  65. 


156  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

48  :  5),  created  the  visible  out  of  the  invisible  (24  :  2;  25; 
26 ;  48  :  5) ;  but  both  visible  and  invisible  were  made  by  him 
(47  :  4;  64  :  5;  65  :  1,  6;  51  :  5).  "I  have  blessed  all  my 
creation,  visible  and  invisible"  (32  :  1,  cf.  52  :  4-5).  The 
peculiarity  of  man's  nature  is  that  it  consists  of  both  visible 
and  invisible  (30  :  10,  16);  hence  his  place  in  the  visible 
creation  is  supreme  (65  :  2,  3;  30-31;  44  :  1).  His  moral 
duty  is  to  choose  the  light,  and  because  he  chooses  darkness 
he  must  die  (30  :  15-16).  This  sin  is  traced  to  his  free 
choice,  but  never  to  his  dual  nature.  Neither  is  the  body  the 
cause  of  Adam's  sin,  nor  is  Adam's  sin  the  cause  of  the  sinful 
nature  of  men.  The  ignorance  which  causes  man  to  sin  may 
be  ignorance  of  himself,  but  Bonwetsch  conjectures  that  it 
was  ignorance  of  God.  "I  saw  his  nature,  but  he  did  not 
see  my  nature"  (30  :  16).  The  only  theory  of  sin  that  is 
clearly  taught  is  that  man  alone  is  responsible  for  it.  It 
does  not  belong  to  either  part  of  his  nature  as  God  made  him, 
the  visible  or  the  invisible,  but  to  the  vain  thoughts  of  his 
heart  (ch.  53).  All  the  works  of  God  are  good,  but  the 
works  of  man  are  some  good,  but  others  evil  (42  :  14). 

This  understanding  of  the  writer's  view  of  sin  according  to 
which  it  is  far  more  Jewish  than  Greek,  is  confirmed  by  a 
study  of  his  ethical  teachings.  The  ideal  is  not  the  subjection 
of  the  bodily  passions  to  the  rule  of  reason,  as  thoroughgoing 
Hellenists  teach  (Philo,  4  Maccabees).  Asceticism  does 
not  appear.  Virtue  consists  in  justice  and  a  charity  that  is 
disinterested  and  prompted  by  love;  in  patient  forbearance 
and  endurance ;  and  in  sincerity  before  God,  who  knows  the 
heart.  ^ 

1  Ch.  9 ;  42 :  6-13 ;  44  :  4  ;  50-52 ;  60 ;  63. 


THE   SIGNIFICANCE   OF   THE 
TEANSFIGUKATION 

WARREN  JOSEPH  MOULTON,  B.D.,  PH.D. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OP  THE 
TRANSFIGURATION^ 


NEW  TESTAMENT  PASSAGES  REFERRING  TO  THE 
TR  AN  SFIGUR  ATION 

The  account  of  the  transfiguration  is  given  in  all  the  Syn- 
optists  and  in  substantially  the  same  chronological  setting. 
Within  the  narratives  themselves,  however,  there  are  differ- 
ences of  detail  so  marked  as  to  demand  a  preliminary  consid- 
eration, even  if  it  be  but  the  brief  recapitulation  of  familiar 
observations.  In  each  instance  we  meet  words  and  phrases 
characteristic  of  the  writer's  diction,  and  there  are,  further- 
more, differences  of  conception  so  marked  as  to  influence  our 
whole  understanding  of  the  event,  according  as  we  regard 
one  or  the  other  gospel  as  being  on  the  whole  the  best  guide 
for  our  interpretation. 

1.    The  Account  in  Mark 

The  second  evangelist  records  (9  :  2-13)  that  after  six  days 
(i.  e.,  on  the  sixth  day  [cf.  8  :  31]  after  the  incident  of 
Peter's  confession)  Jesus  takes  Peter  and  the  brothers  (a 
single  Toy),  James  and  John,  and  conducts  them  (and  them 
only,  fxovov;}  up  (ava(pepeC)  into  a  high  mountain,  away  from 
all  interruption  (jcar    IBlav,  cf.  4  :  34;  6  :  31).     This  exact 

1  It  was  only  after  the  presentation  of  this  paper  before  the  Semitic  and  Bibli- 
cal Club  that  I  learned  from  Professor  Bacon  that  he  was  investigating  the  same 
general  subject.  Through  his  kindness  I  had  the  privilege  of  reading  in  MSS. 
his  brilliant  and  suggestive  article  which  will  probably  soon  be  published.  Not 
being  able  to  assent  to  his  main  contention,  however,  I  venture  to  print  my 
original  paper,  hoping  it  will  be  of  service  in  helping  to  a  better  understanding 
of  a  very  important  section  in  the  gospel  history. 


160  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

designation  of  the  time,  so  unusual  in  the  second  gospel,  as 
well  as  the  very  explicit  mention  of  the  isolation,  are  both 
noticeable.  For  Jesus  and  his  disciples  were  apparently  still 
in  the  vicinity  of  Caesarea  Philippi,  and  would  under  any 
circumstances  experience  little  difficulty  in  finding  seclusion. 
The  mountain  in  question  was  doubtless  unknown  to  our 
writer,  or  was  not  considered  important  enough  for  his  pur- 
pose to  deserve  especial  mention.  The  et?  6po<i  v-^rjXov  recalls 
the  same  indefinite  designation  in  the  account  of  the  third 
temptation,  as  narrated  in  Matthew  (4  :  8).  In  both  in- 
stances tradition  made  Tabor  in  South  Galilee  the  mountain. 
From  the  time  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  ^  the  acceptance  of  this 
place  as  the  scene  of  the  transfiguration  came  to  be  as  wide  ^ 
as  is  its  rejection  at  present.  It  was  based  possibly  on  a 
citation  from  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hehreivs  in  Origen.^ 
Lackinsr  the  context  from  which  the  citation  was  taken  we 
cannot  be  sure  as  to  the  event  there  alluded  to,  but  it  seems 
not  improbable  that  it  was  the  temptation.* 

Tabor  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  probable  locality  of  the 
transfiguration,  not  only  because  it  was  a  fortified  camp  ^  at 
that  time,  but  because  no  mention  is  made  of  the  entrance  of 
Jesus  and  the  disciples  into  Galilee  until  after  this  incident 
(9  :  30). 

Three  stages  are  indicated  in  the  description  of  the  expe- 
rience on  the  mountain. 

(a)  Jesus  is  so  transformed  in  the  presence  of  the  disciples 
that  even  his  garments  become  of  such  excessive  glistening 
whiteness  (om.  &>?  xtwi^,  cf .  Dan.  7:9;  Matt.  28  :  3 ;  Rev. 
1  :  14)  that  the  work  of  no  fuller  on  earth  can  be  compared 
with  them.  To  describe  this  change  Mark  employs  the  un- 
usual verb  fjL€Tafiop(f)ovv.     Thus  far  we  know  of  its  use  by 

1  Cat.  XII.  16. 

2  Cf.  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Ueb.  et  Tal,  ad  loc.  "  For  who  ever  doubted  of  this 
thing." 

8  Joann.,  torn.  II.  6,  cf.  Reach,  Agrapha,  S.  383  ;  and  Ropes,  Die  SprUche  Jesu, 
u.  8.  w.,  S.  99. 

*  Zahn,  Gesck.  d.  N.  T.  Kan.,  II.  690  ff. :  Ropes,  loc.  cit. 
6  Josephus,  B.  J.,  IV.  1,  8. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE    OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    161 

the  Old  Testament  translators  only  once.^  In  the  New  Tes- 
tament, outside  of  the  parallel  in  Matthew,  it  occurs  only  in 
Second  Corinthians  3  :  18  and  Romans  12  :  2,  where  it  has  a 
moral  or  ethical  significance.  As  in  all  these  instances,  so 
in  the  infrequent  usage  of  Greek  writers,  mostly  late,  it  is 
found  in  the  passive.  It  seems  to  be  a  near  synonym  with 
/u,eTacr%77/i.aTt^eti'.  Its  abrupt  appearance  in  the  gospel  narra- 
tive with  so  little  explanation  shows  that  at  the  time  of 
writing  it  had  become  a  terminus  technicus  for  the  scene  on 
the  mount. 2  The  glistening  of  Jesus'  garments  is  described 
in  a  way  peculiar  to  Mark  and  without  New  Testament 
parallels.^  'Etrl  tt}?  7^9  clearly  intends  a  contrast  to  the 
heavenly  glory. 

(b)  (vv.  4-6).  Nor  was  Jesus  seen  alone,  but  there  ap- 
peared to  them  Elijah,  together  with  Moses,  and  they  were 
conversing  with  Jesus.  Peter,  stirred  by  what  he  sees,  says 
to  Jesus,  "Rabbi,  it  is  fortunate  we  are  present.*  Let  us 
make  here  three  tabernacles:  for  thee  one,  for  Moses  one, 
and  for  Elijah  one."  This  he  did,  not  at  all  realizing  the 
meaning  of  his  rejoinder  (airoKptdrf)^^  for  they  all  became 
thoroughly  frightened  (eK^o^oc  yap  e'yevovro). 

The  abrupt  transition  to  this  second  phase  of  the  experi- 
ence is  noticeable.  There  is  no  description  of  the  coming 
of  Elijah  and  Moses,  but  it  is  simply  said  that  Elijah  ap- 
pears, or  shows  himself  with  Moses. ^  In  this  first  allusion 
Elijah   precedes,^  whereas  in   the  next  verse   Moses'  name 

1  Symm.  Superscription  of  Ps.  33  (34)  1.     LXX,  aWoiovv,  Heb.  njty. 

2  Cf.  Weiss,  Mar.,  S.  296,  an.  1, 

3  "^TtK^eiv  not  otherwise  in  N.  T.  but  in  LXX.  So  also  yva<f>fvs,  but  cf.  Mk. 
2 :  21  (Mt.  9: 16).  In  O.  T.  we  hear  of  the  fuller's  field,  2  K.  18:17;  Isa.  7  :3; 
36  : 2  ;  and  of  fuller's  soap,  Mai.  3 : 2.  The  reference  here  in  Mk.  (cf.  Isa.  1:18; 
Rev.  7 :  14)  must  be  connected  with  the  art  of  bleaching,  of  course,  and  not  with 
the  process  of  fulling  or  reducing  of  the  shrinkage  of  woollen  fabrics. 

*  Cf.  Mark  7:  27;  I  Cor.  7:1,8. 

^  Cf.  Mark  14  :  40,  koI  ovk  rjSfi(Tav,  ri  oLTroKpiOwcriv  avrc^. 

^  SxpQj)  is  the  word  used  of  the  appearing  of  Yahwe,  Gen.  12:7;  Acts  7  :  2%  of 
angels,  Jud.  6  :  12 ;  Luke  1:11;  of  Jesus  after  his  resurrection,  Luke  24  :  34;  I 
Cor.  15:5  ff.,  and  also  of  visions.  Rev.  11:19;  Acts  16:9. 

7  This  can  hardly  be  attributed  to  the  order  of  the  LXX  text  in  Mai.  4  : 4  ff. 
(3:23). 

11 


162  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

comes  first,  as  in  all  the  parallel  passages  of  Matthew  and 
Luke.  ^ A.TroKpL6el<i  (v.  5)  does  not  refer  to  anything  said  by 
Jesus,  for  there  is  no  mention  of  any  word  of  his  in  Mark 
until  they  are  descending  the  mountain  (v.  9),  but  it  is  here 
used  of  a  response  called  forth  by  the  situation  (cf .  11  :  14 ; 
15  :  12).  Skijv^,  according  to  LXX  usage,  a  tent  (cf.  Heb. 
11  :  9),  or  temporary  structure  of  boughs,  is  chosen  also  pos- 
sibly because  of  its  association  with  the  divine  presence. 
Peter's  proposal  evinces  a  distraction  (cf.  14  :  40)  which 
the  evangelist  explains  through  excessive  fear  {€K<f)o^oi), 
although  the  words  seem  to  be  expressive  of  excessive  joy. 

(c)  The  answer  to  this  proposal  was  precluded  by  the 
sudden  appearance  of  a  cloud  which  overshadowed  Jesus  and 
his  associates  (avTol<i)^  and  from  out  the  cloud  came  forth 
(J<yevero)  a  voice  (om.  Xeyovcra),  "This  is  my  beloved  son, 
hear  ye  him."  And  then  the  whole  appearance  vanishes, 
for,  looking  round  about,  they  suddenly  become  aware  there 
is  no  longer  any  one  with  them,  save  (ei  fii]^  Jesus  only. 

The  transition  to  this  third  phase  seems  even  more  abrupt 
than  the  preceding  one.  The  cloud  appearing  with  such 
suddenness  is  the  familiar  Old  Testament  symbol  for  the 
divine  presence  (cf.  I  Kings  8  :  10;  Ex.  16  :  10;  19  :  9  ff. ; 
Lev.  16  :  2;  2  Mac.  2  :  8,  etc.),  and  the  heavenly  voice 
clearly  marks  it  as  such  in  this  case.  The  logical  sequence 
demands  that  the  ones  overshadowed  (aurot?)  be  Jesus  and 
his  associates,  while  the  disciples  are  the  witnesses  and 
auditors  without.  The  words  spoken  repeat  the  declaration 
at  the  baptism,  not,  however,  in  the  form  of  direct  address 
to  Jesus  (so  Mark  1  :  11 ;  Luke  3  :  22),  but  in  the  third 
person  (so  Matt.  3  :  17).  There  is  in  Mark  no  equivalent 
for  the  iv  aol  evSoKTjaa.  In  common  with  the  others  he  has 
the  added  injunction  aKovere  avrov,  recalling  Moses'  promise 
of  a  future  prophet  and  the  admonition  to  hear  him  (Deut. 
18  :  15  ff.).  'E^dinva  (for  the  more  usual  i^aicjyvrjq')  indicates 
the  suddenness  with  which  the  whole  scene  changed,  and  is 
possibly  best  taken  with  the  verb.^ 

1  So  Weias,  Mar.,  S.  298. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    163 

Without  added  comment  or  explanation,  or  note  of  time 
or  movement,  the  evangelist  passes  from  this  scene  and  tells 
us  forthwith  of  Jesus'  injunction,  given  while  they  were 
descending  {Kara^aivovTcov')  the  mountain,  that  they  tell  no 
man  what  they  had  seen,  except  whenever  the  Son  of  Man 
should  rise  from  the  dead.  The  following  verse,  peculiar  to 
Mark,  is  difficult  of  interpretation.  Many^  understand  Kal 
TOP  Xoyov  iKparrjaav  to  state  that  the  disciples  were  obedient 
to  Jesus'  command  (cf.  Luke  9  :  36).  But  it  better  suits 
the  usual  meaning  of  the  verb  to  translate,  "  And  they  laid 
fast  hold  of  the  saying,  among  themselves  (irpo^  eavTov<;\ 
questioning  what  the  rising  from  the  dead  is,"  i.  e.,  of  course, 
in  this  context,  the  rising  from  the  dead  just  referred  to.  In 
any  case,  the  verse  represents  a  comment  of  the  writer  who 
again  emphasizes  the  lack  of  comprehension  on  the  part  of 
the  disciples.  It  interrupts  the  course  of  the  narrative. 
This  goes  on  in  the  next  verse  to  tell  not  of  discussions 
among  themselves,  but  how  they  continued  questioning 
(€777) pcoTcov)  Jcsus  as  to  thc  lessons  of  the  recent  experience. 
Something  in  it  seemed  to  contradict  the  current  rabbinical 
teaching  as  to  Elijah,  and  so  they  remind  him  that  (oTt)  the 
scribes  (om.  ol  ^apiaalot  Kat)  say  Elijah  must  first  come  (cf. 
Mai.  3  :  23  [4  :  4]).  How  this  topic  is  connected  with  the 
preceding  narrative,  and  just  what  the  difficulty  in  question 
was,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  consider  at  length  later  on. 
Whatever  it  was,  Jesus  did  not  share  it,  but  said  (o  Se  e(}>r)) 
to  them,  "Elijah,  to  be  sure  (fiev)^  coming  first  restores 
(cf.  Matt.  2  :  4)  all  things."  Far  from  denying,  he  confirms 
the  prophetic  necessity  of  Elijah's  advent.  Then,  appar- 
ently recurring  to  their  objection,  he  continues.  Do  you 
then  ask,  "How  (ttw?)  it  is  written  with  reference  to  the 
Son  of  Man  that  he  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at  nought 
(i^ovBevTjefj,  cf.  Isa.  53  :  3  Symm.  his,  Aq.,  Th. ;  Ps.  21 
[22],  7).  But  I  say  unto  you  this  is  possible,  yea,  more  than 
probable,   for  Elijah  also  has   come  (ikrfkvOev),   and   they 

*  So^  e.  g.,  Holtzmann  and  Weiss,  cf .  Mark  7 : 3, 4,  8. 


164  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

worked  their  will  on  him,^  as  it  was  written  regarding  him. 
In  absence  of  any  passage  in  the  Old  Testament,  containing 
an  express  prediction  suiting  this  last  Kudcb^  yiypaiTTaiy  it  is 
usually  held  that  the  fate  intended  for  Elijah  (I  Kings  19  ff.) 
was  typical  of  that  which  overtook  John.^  This  seems  to  be 
in  harmony  with  Jesus'  view  of  prophecy  and  to  suit  various 
other  allusions  (e.  g.,  Matt.  23  :  37  [Luke  13  :  34];  Mark 
12  :  2  ff .  and  parallels),  as  well  as  the  fact  that  he  saw  in 
John  the  promised  herald  (cf.  Matt.  11  :  10  [Luke  7  :  27],  14; 
17  :  13).  Furthermore,  early  Christian  apologetics  moved 
along  this  same  line  of  interpretation.  We  do  not  then 
necessarily  need  to  seek  an  explanation  of  these  words  in  any 
tradition  of  an  express  prediction  of  such  a  fate.^ 

2.    The  Account  in  Matthew 

Turning  now  to  the  first  gospel  (17  :  1-13),  we  find  a 
somewhat  longer  account,  with  much  the  same  content,  but 
with  many  differences  in  detail. 

V.  1.  John  is  not  only  named,  but  further  described  as 
the  brother  of  James  Qrbv  dSeXcfjov  avrov)^  as  elsewhere  in 
Matthew  and  usually  in  Mark  (note  (xovov;  is  not  used). 

V.  2.    Beside  the  fiere^iop^dyOr]  appearing  in  Mark,  we  have 

1  For  this  phrase  as  descriptive  of  deeds  of  violence,  cf.  Dan.  8:4;  1 1  :  16,  36 ; 
2  Mac.  7:16. 

-  Dalman  objects  to  such  an  assumption.  He  points  to  the  use  of  the  phrase 
"and  he  shall  do  according  to  his  will,"  Dan.  11:16  and  36  (Mark  9  :  13,  koJ  iiro'niffav 
avrif  '6(Ta  ^de\ov),  and  thinks  it  probable  Jesus  includes  Elijah  among  those 
alluded  to  in  Dan.  11  :33.     Der  leidende  n.  der  sterbende  Messias,  S.  29  f. 

3  Attention  has  been  recently  called  anew  to  a  Jewish  writing  of  unknown 
authorship,  which  belongs  possibly  to  the  first  century  a.  d.  It  was  wrongly  as- 
cribed to  Philo.  It  gives  a  peculiar  version  of  biblical  liistory  from  Adam  to  the 
death  of  Saul.  In  speaking  of  Phineas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  it  says  that  when  he 
passed  120  years  of  age  lie  was  commanded  by  God  to  withdraw  into  a  certain  place 
where  he  should  be  fed  by  an  eagle.  Later  he  w.-vs  to  come  down  among  men  and 
then  be  taken  up  to  be  with  those  like  him.  At  the  end  he  was  to  come  to  earth 
again  and  then  should  taste  death.  Tradition  identified  Phineas  with  Elijah  and 
so  we  have  here  really  a  description  of  tlie  lot  of  Elijah.  Accordingly  we  see 
this  writer  knows  of  the  death  of  Elijah  at  the  time  of  his  final  mission,  v.  Inde- 
vendent,  1898,  p.  1218:  Jewish  Q.  Review,  vol.  x.,  1898,  p.  277  ff. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF    THE   TRANSFIGURATION    165 

the  added  description  koX  eXafMyjrev  to  irpoawirov  avrov  009  6 
^\i09  (of.  Matt.  13  :  43;  Rev.  10  : 1;  Enoch  14  :  20).  The 
change  in  Jesus'  raiment  is  described  more  simply,  as 
becoming  Xevxa  «?  to  ^w?  (cf.  I  Tim.  6  :  16;  Enoch 
14  :  18  ff.). 

V.  3.  An  IBov  marks  the  first  transition.  Here  it  is  "  Moses 
and  Elijah"  who  appear  and  are  talking  "with  him"  (/xer' 
avTov^. 

V.  4.  Beside  minor  differences  (8e  [Mark,  KaC] ;  elirev  [Mark, 
\e7et];  Kvpie  [Mark,  pa^^ei])  we  find  the  smoother  construc- 
tion, el  de\ei<;  (cf.  11  :  14)  froi'qato  whe  (Mark,  koX  iroirjawfiev). 
Peter  thus  speaks  for  himself  alone,  but  notice  the  preceding 
rjna^.  It  is  striking  that  an  added  wSe  should  immediately 
follow  the  preceding  one,  which  also  appears  in  Mark. 

V.  5.  Matthew  does  not  make  mention  of  Peter's  confu- 
sion, nor  does  he  speak  of  the  fear  of  the  disciples  at  this 
juncture.  Nothing  in  his  account  suggests  that  Peter's 
proposition  to  construct  the  tabernacles  is  irrelevant.  He 
describes  the  transition  to  the  third  phase  of  the  experience 
with  more  elaboration:  'in  avrov  XaXovvro'i  ISov  (cf.  12  :  46). 
This  IBov  is  in  Matthew  alone,  as  is  also  the  description  of  the 
cloud  as  (ficoTLvt]  (cf .  6  :  22 ;  Luke  11  :  34  ff. ).  Another  added 
IBov  introduces  the  voice,  as  it  did  the  voice  at  the  baptism ; 
in  fact,  V.  5^  reproduces  verbatim  3  :  17,  with  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  necessary  t?}«?  i/e^eXi;?  for  rwv  ovpavcov,  and  with 
the  added  aKovere  avrov. 

vv.  6  and  7.  These  verses,  peculiar  to  the  first  gospel, 
describe  the  effect  of  the  voice  on  the  disciples.  It  is  by 
reason  of  the  cloud  and  voice  that  fear  first  seizes  upon  them. 
Their  conduct  accords  with  that  so  often  depicted  under  like 
circumstances  in  Biblical  writings  (cf.  Jud.  6  :  22;  Dan. 
10  :  9;  Isa.  6:5;  Rev.  1  :  17).  Indeed,  quite  a  close 
verbal  parallel  exists  between  these  verses  and  Dan.  8  :  16- 
18.^  Jesus  here  addresses  the  disciples  as  he  nowhere  does 
in  the  other  accounts. 

V.  8.    According  to  this  narrative  it  is  while  they  are  pros- 

1  Cf.  Volkmar,  Marcus,  S.  460;  cf.  also  Dau.  10:9  ff. 


166  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

trate  on  the  ground  that  the  change  takes  place,  and  when, 
encouraged  by  Jesus'  voice,  they  raise  their  eyes  (eVapai^re?), 
they  find  themselves  alone  with  him. 

V.  9.  The  subject  is  here  expressed  (o  'IiyoroO?  Xeytov')  and 
the  command  given  in  the  direct  form.  (Note  evere'tXaro 
[Mark,  8tecrT€tX,aTo] ;  ef'Tri^Te  [Mark,  ZLT^yrjawvTai]).  Especially 
noteworthy  is  the  to  opajxa  (Mark,  h  elhov)^  a  word  used  to 
describe  the  visions  of  the  prophets  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  in  the  New  Testament  used  otherwise  only  of  the  visions 
in  the  book  of  Acts  (but  cf.  Acts  7  :  31).  (Note  ew?  ov 
[Mark,   el  fjurj  orav];    iyepOrj  [Mark,   dvaa-rpj). 

V.  10.  Here  we  have  the  A  or.  emjpdorr^aav  (Mark,  Imp.) 
and  the  expressed  subject  ol  /jLaOrjral^  although  only  the  Three 
can  be  intended.    The  question  takes  the  direct  form  (t/  ovv). 

V.  11.  The  same  is  true  of  Jesus'  rejoinder  (^aTroKpcdek^. 
(Note  elirev  again  [Mark,  ecjirjj).  In  his  answer  Jesus  says 
that  Elijah  comes  (epx^rat  [Mark,  eX^wi/]),  and  will  restore 
(^aTroKaraaT^aet  [Mark,  aTroKaTLaTdveiY)  ^i-ll  things.  This  was 
interpreted  by  many  of  the  Church  Fathers  and  later  writers 
to  teach  the  real  coming  of  Elijah  before  the  second  advent. ^ 

V.  12.  Over  against  (Se)  this  affirmation  is  put  the  state- 
ment,. Elijah  has  come  already  {i]8r)  rjXOev  [Mark,  i\rj\v9evY)^ 
and  Matthew  adds,  they  did  not  recognize  him  (/cal  ovk 
eveyvcoaau  avTov^.  (Note  the  iv  avTw,  *)]3  [Mark  om.  iv] 
and  Aor.  rjOeX'qcav  [Mark,  ^^eXov]).  Matthew  further  adds 
to  Jesus'  answer,  "And  thus  the  Son  of  Man  is  about  to 
suffer  at  their  hands  "  (utt'  avroiv). 

V.  13.  The  incident  ends  with  the  comment,  found  only 
in  Matthew,  that  then  the  disciples  (again  ol  /xadrjral)  under- 
stood that  he  spoke  to  them  of  John  the  Baptist. 

3.    The  Account  in  Luke 

Turning  now  to  the  third  gospel  (9:  28-36),  we  find  varia- 
tions in  detail  which  are  even  more  significant  than  those  just 
considered. 

1  Cf.  Chry8.,  ad  loc. ;  Aug.,  Tract,  in  Jno.,  4 : 5  and  6 ;  Justin  M.,  Dial.  w. 
Trypho,  49 ;  Olshausen,  Com.,  ad  loc. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    167 

V.  28.  The  account  is  here  prefaced  by  the  introductory 
formula  iyevero  Be  fjuera  r6v<;  \6yov<i  tovtov?.  Then  follows 
the  elliptical  phrase  axxel  (cf.  9  :  14;  23  :  44;  Acts  2  :  41, 
etc.)  rjfiipat  oKTco  which  is  usually  understood  as  the  com- 
prehensive designation  of  an  interval  of  a  week.  (Note 
'TrapaXa/3(t)v  [cf .  9  :  10,  Mark  and  Matthew,  Xafi^dvei] ;  dvi^rj 
[Mark,  Matthew,  dvaipepeij).  The  vy\r7}\6v  standing  after 
6po<i  in  Mark  and  Matthew  does  not  appear  here. 

In  the  enumeration  of  the  names  of  the  disciples  John 
precedes  James  (so  also  8  :  51 ;  9  :  28 ;  Acts  1  :  13),  an  in- 
version of  the  earlier  order  (cf.  5  :  10;  6  :  14;  9  :  54  and 
Matthew  and  Mark  always),  which  was  no  doubt  originally 
that  of  seniority  and  distinction.  The  change  probably 
came  about  later  and  was  occasioned  by  the  prominence  of 
John  in  apostolic  history.  Thus  James,  who  was  then  re- 
garded as  the  less  distinguished,  came  to  be  described  as  the 
brother  of  John  (Acts  12  :  2).  Luke  alone  tells  us  that  the 
purpose  of  Jesus'  retirement  was  for  prayer  {vpoa-ev^aadai, 
cf.  3  :21;  6  :  12). 

V.  29.  The  change  in  Jesus'  appearance  is  described  as 
taking  place  while  he  was  engaged  in  prayer.  To  indi- 
cate what  this  change  was  the  writer  does  not  employ  the 
fieTa/xopcpovv  of  Mark,  nor  the  added  phrase  of  Matthew, 
but  only  says,  the  form  of  his  countenance  became  different 
(^iyivero  .  .  .  to  etSo?  [cf.  3  :  22]  rov  TrpoacoTrov  avrov  erepov^ 
and  his  garment  (sing.)  became  white,  flashing  forth  like 
lightning.  1 

V.  30.  He  does  not  speak  directly  of  the  appearance  of 
Moses  and  Elijah,  but  says,  "And  lo!  two  men  (dvSpe<i) 
were  talking  {(Tvve\d\ovv)  with  him  who  were  (or  who  were 
such  as,  o'inve^)  Moses  and  Elijah." 

vv.  31-33*.  In  these  verses,  which  are  peculiar  to  the 
third  gospel,  we  are  told:  (a)  that  Moses  and  Elijah  also 
appeared  in  glory  {ev  Bo^j));  (b)  that  they  were  telling 
(eXeyov)  him  of  his  exodus  (e^oBov)  ^  which  he  was  about  to 

1  i^aa-rpdiTTuu  only  here  in  New  Testament.     In  LXX,  Nah.  3:3;  Ez.  1 : 4,  7. 

2  For  the  usage  of  this  word  for  death,  cf .  Wis.  3:2;  7:6;  II  Pet.  1 :  15  and 
contrast  elffoSos,  Acts  13  :  24 ;  Wis.  7:6;  v.  Zahn,  N.  T.  Einleit.,  II.  S.  56. 


168  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

fulfill  {irX-qpovv)  in  Jerusalem;  (c)  that  Peter  and  his  com- 
panions (ot  (Tvv  avTw,  cf .  Acts  2  :  14,  87 ;  5  :  29)  were  weighed 
down  with  sleep  {^e^apr^fievoL  [cf .  Matt.  26  :  43 ;  Mark  14  : 
40]  uTTj/ft))  and,  having  with  an  effort  remained  awake,  or 
probably  better,  having  become  awake  {Siaypiryop'tjaavTe'i 
only  here  in  New  Testament  and  LXX),  they  saw  Jesus' 
glory  and  the  two  men  {8vo  dvhpa^)  standing  with  him; 
(d)  that  the  occasion  of  Peter's  words  was  the  movement  of 
the  visitors  to  depart  (Siaxoyp^^eadac)  from  Jesus.  It  is 
evident  that  the  writer  conceived  of  the  event  as  taking 
place  at  night  (cf.  also  v.  37,  rfj  €^ij<i  rnxepa).  The  allusion 
to  the  sleep  of  the  disciples  recalls  the  later  scene  in  Geth- 
semane  (22  :  45  and  parallels). 

V.  33''' ".  The  impulse  of  Peter  is  to  detain  the  visitors, 
and  hence  his  proposition,  which  is  given  essentially  as  in 
Mark.  (Note  etTrev  [so  Matthew,  but  Mark  Xeyei] ;  airoKptdei'i 
[Mark,  Matthew]  not  used;  Trpo?  tov  'Irjaovu  [Mark,  Matthew, 
TM  'Irja-ov'];  eiriaTdra  [cf.  5:5;  8  :  24,  etc.]  peculiar  to 
Luke,  Mark  has  here  pa/S^el,  Matthew  Kvpie ;  p-iav  precedes 
the  designation  of  person  [follows  in  Mark  and  Matthew] ;  firj 
eiSo)?  o  Xiyet  [Mark,  ov  yap  ijSeL  tI  airoKpidri^  Matthew  om.]). 

v.  34.  (Note  ravra  he  avTov  Xeyovro?  [Matthew,  eVt  avTov 
XaXoOi'To?,  Mark  om.] ;  iyevero  [so  Mark;  Matthew,  tSou] ;  koI 
iTTca-Kia^ev  avTov<i  [Mark,  eirtaKui^ovaa  avroi<i^  Matthew, 
iTreaKtaa-ev  avTov<i\). 

In  Mark  the  fear  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  Peter's 
remark  and  so  before  the  description  of  the  cloud.  In 
Matthew,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  spoken  of  at  the  end,  after 
the  voice,  being  occasioned  by  the  divine  presence.  Here  in 
Luke  it  comes  after  the  cloud,  but  before  the  voice.  (Note 
i<f)o^i]dr)(Tav;  SO  Matt.  v.  6;  Mark  €K(f)o^oi  yap  iyevovro.) 
Its  motive,  apparently  the  same  as  in  Matthew,  is  explained 
by  the  added  phrase  iv  tc5  elcreXdelv  avToi/f  et?  rrjv  vecfteXTjv. 
The  preceding  avTov^  is  ambiguous,  as  in  the  parallels,  but 
probably  here  and  in  the  following  instance  designates  Jesus 
and  his  companions  in  distinction  from  the  disciples. 

V.  35.    The  description  of  the  voice  and  its  message  is 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    169 

given  exactly  as  in  Mark,  except  that  t^avri  here  precedes 
the  predicate,  Xejovaa  is  used,  avrov  precedes  aKomre^  and 
eKXeXeyfMevo'i  (cf.  23  :  35  eVXe/cro?)  stands  where  Mark  and 
Matthew  have  ayaTrrjro'i. 

V.  36.  In  place  of  the  more  descriptive  passages  with 
which  the  experience  closes  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  Luke 
merely  says,  "  And  after  the  voice  had  come  (yeviadai,  cf .  2  : 
27;  3  :  21,  etc.)  Jesus  was  found  alone"  {eOpedr}  [cf.  Acts  8  : 
40]  'Ir](rov<i  fiovo'i  [Mark,  Matthew,  ovSiva  etSov  el  fir)  top 
'IrjcTovv  iiovovY)-  He  makes  no  mention  of  the  descent  of  the 
mountain,  nor  does  he  record  any  subsequent  conversation 
or  prohibition,  but  says  that  they  were  silent  of  their  own 
accord  and  did  not  tell  (airrjyyeLKav^  cf.  8  :  20,  34,  36,  47, 
etc.)  any  one  in  those  days  (cf.  2:1;  4:2;  5  :  35,  etc.) 
anything  of  what  they  had  seen. 

4.    Mark^s  Account  the  most  Primitive 

Such  a  review  of  our  narratives  makes  it  evident  that  no 
two  of  the  writers  entertained  exactly  the  same  conception 
as  to  the  order  and  significance  of  the  events  occurring  dur- 
ing this  retirement  of  Jesus  with  the  three  disciples.  No 
one  of  them  is  without  able  defenders  who  are  prepared  to 
champion  his  relative  originality.  In  many  instances  the 
choice  of  the  writer  to  be  thus  defended  is  determined  by 
the  theory  held  regarding  the  origin  and  interdependence  of 
the  gospels.  Otherwise  it  may  depend  on  the  line  of  inter- 
pretation which  is  adopted.  If  we  look  first  at  the  experi- 
ence on  the  mount  which  all  three  relate,  it  is  certainly  true 
that  the  narrative  in  the  second  gospel  is  the  briefest.  It 
evidently  has  the  least  amount  of  what  may  be  termed  edi- 
torial comment  and  amplification,  and  in  so  far  is  the  most 
original.  Whether  it  has  taken  up  and  preserved  most 
faithfully  the  content  of  some  hypothetical,  primitive  source, 
is  an  entirely  different  question  and  one  that  cannot  be  satis- 
factorily settled  until  we  are  in  possession  of  such  a  source. 
In  each  instance  it  is  probable,  and  to  such  a  degree  probable 


170  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

as  to  amount  almost  to  a  certainty,  that  later  experiences 
and  developments  in  the  Christian  community  have  in  some 
measure  influenced  the  choice  of  expressions  and  the  form 
of  the  narrative.  It  is  not,  primarily,  as  biographers  seek- 
ing to  impart  information  that  the  evangelists  write,  but  as 
those  who  are  striving  to  influence  the  conceptions  of  their 
readers.  This  holds  true  of  Mark,  as  well  as  of  the  others, 
but  in  the  case  of  the  narrative  of  the  transfiguration  the 
balance  of  evidence  from  a  comparative  study  supports  those 
who  claim  that  the  influence  of  such  a  purpose  is  least  dis- 
cernible in  the  second  gospel.  Without  entering  upon  a 
detailed  discussion  at  the  expense  of  great  repetition  we  may 
assume  that  it  has  been  adequately  shown  that  its  brevity 
and  obscurity  are  not  of  a  character  to  make  necessary  the 
supposition  of  dependence  on  a  fuller  account,  such  as  may 
be  thought  to  be  implied  in  either  of  the  other  gospels. 
That  such  an  account  ever  existed  has  yet  to  be  shown. 
Mark's  conciseness  does  indicate  that  he  is  not  now  for  the 
first  time  telling  of  something  before  entirely  unknown,  but 
rather  of  something  which  he  had  often  heard  recounted. 
The  obscurity  grows  out  of  this  familiarity.  In  the  case 
of  Matthew  the  added  details  and  clearness  are  not  to  be 
attributed  so  much  to  more  accurate  information  as  to  the 
introduction  of  conceptions  germane  to  his  theme  which  ap- 
pear elsewhere  in  his  own  writing,  or  in  writings  current  in 
his  time.  This  cannot  be  asserted  in  exactly  the  same  way 
in  the  case  of  the  third  gospel,  but  it  is  true  of  some  of  its 
most  characteristic  variations.  In  others  the  tendency  which 
is  discernible  in  the  author  to  literalize  and  interpret  and 
translate  into  the  terms  of  his  vocabulary  is  a  more  plausible 
explanation  than  the  claim  of  relative  originality.  The 
prominence  of  John  (v.  28)  and  of  Peter  (v.  32  ff.),  the 
statement  that  Jesus  withdraws  for  prayer  (v.  28),  the  giving 
of  the  theme  of  conversation  as  his  exodus  (v.  31),  the  put- 
ting of  the  scene  in  the  night  and  the  allusion  to  the  sleep 
of  the  disciples,  the  assertion  that  Moses  and  Elijah  also 
appeared  in  glory  (v.  31),  the  prosaic  close  of  the  account 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    171 

with  the  statement  that  the  disciples  kept  silent  of  their  own 
accord,  do  not  commend  themselves  as  original  features. 

As  for  the  conversation  which  took  place  as  they  came 
down  from  the  mountain,  which  is  recorded  only  in  Mark 
and  Matthew,^  the  text  of  Mark  is  generally  conceded  to  be 
more  original  than  that  of  Matthew  or  any  other  text  which 
an  eclectic  process  has  thus  far  constructed  from  the  material 
present  in  both.  The  difficulties  and  obscurities  of  Mark 
(9  :  9,  11,  12)  are  absent  in  Matthew,  and  we  find  again 
natural  comment  and  explanation  added  (Matt.  17  ;  12,  13) 
for  the  improvement  of  the  narrative. 

5.    The  Account  in  the  Fourth  Gospel 

The  fourth  gospel  has  no  record  of  this  northern  sojourn 
and  withdrawal  to  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration,  but  the 
section  12  :  20-36  bears  in  several  particulars  ^  such  striking 
resemblance  to  the  synoptic  narratives  which  we  have  been 
considering  that  it  is  by  some  regarded  as  a  parallel.  It  is 
possible,  indeed,  that  this  experience  constitutes  a  much  closer 
parallel  than  is  generally  supposed,  and  that  investigation 
may  show  it  does  not  necessarily  include  beside  all  the  com- 
monly assumed  reminiscences  of  the  night  in  Gethsemane. 
But  such  a  study  may  more  properly  follow  our  present 
undertaking  than  be  included  in  it,  and  we  will  accordingly 
not  venture  here  upon  any  further  discussion  of  the  witness 
of  the  fourth  gospel. 

6.    The  Account  in  Second  Peter 

There  remains  one  other  New  Testament  passage  which 
must  be  considered  together  with  the  preceding  sources, 
namely,  Second  Peter  1  :  12  £f.  Apart  from  all  questions  of 
authorship,  its  early  date  gives  it  great  importance.  The 
writer  is  setting  forth  the  assured  certainty  of  the  parousia 

1  Cf.  Luke  7  :  18  ff.  especially  v.  27  ;  1:17. 

2  Cf.  especially  John  1 2  :  25,  26  with  Mark  8:35  ff.  and  parallels ;  also  John 
12  :28  with  Mark  9  :  7  and  parallels,  not  only  in  form,  but  also  in  content. 


172  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

and  says  (v.  16  ff.),  "For  not  in  pursuance  of  cunningly 
devised  fables  did  we  make  known  unto  you  the  power  and 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  as  eye-witnesses  of  his 
majesty.  For  when  he  received  honor  and  glory  from  God 
the  Father  as  a  voice  like  the  following  came  to  him  from 
the  Excellent  Glory,  This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased;  and  this  voice  we  heard  come  out  of  heaven, 
being  with  him  in  the  holy  mount." 

The  traditional  interpretation  finds  here  a  reference  to  the 
transfiguration,  v.  Hofraann  ^  disputed  this,  maintaining 
that  Xa^cov  yap  Trapa  deov  irarpo'i  Tip,r]v  Kal  Bo^av  must  be 
understood  rather  of  the  glorification  of  Jesus  through  the 
resurrection  and  ascension.  The  whole  context,  however, 
opposes  this  explanation,  and  it  is  not  strange  that  it  has 
met  with  slight  favor.  It  is  also  opposed  by  the  fact  that 
we  have  no  record  of  a  glorification  of  Jesus  after  the  resur- 
rection, but  are  told  that  he  was  seen  in  a  body  like  in  appear- 
ance to  his  earthly  form.  The  objections  of  v.  Hofmann 
to  the  current  exegesis  are  of  greater  importance  than  his 
constructive  contribution,  and  are  sanctioned,  among  others, 
by  Spitta.2  The  real  center  of  difficulty  is  the  unfinished 
sentence  in  v.  17^.  The  generally  accepted  rendering  makes 
the  time  expressed  by  the  Gen.  absolute  <^oivri<i  ive-)(6eLcrr}<i 
synchronous  with  that  of  Xa^oov  k.t.X.,  and  affirms  that, 
in  part  at  least,  the  honor  and  glory  mentioned  are  to  be 
found  in  this  declaration  of  the  heavenly  voice  (Bath-Qol). 
Against  such  a  view  it  is  urged  that,  were  it  true,  we  should 
have  rather  a  Part,  with  imperfect  signification  (c^epo^eV?;?), 
and,  further,  that  the  being  an  eye-witness,  which  is  so  im- 
portant in  the  passage,  would  then  really  be  transformed  into 
being  an  ear-witness.  Aa^wv  k.t.X.,  it  is  asserted,  refers 
rather  to  something  other  tlian  the  reception  of  the  divine 
declaration,  to  something  that  was  perceptible  to  the  eye. 
If  this  be  admitted,  and  it  is  still  held  that  the  words  uttered 
by  the  voice  and  the  expression  "holy  mount  "  make  it  prob- 

1  Die  hi.  .Schrift,  N.  T.,   V,  1873. 

^  Friedrich  Spitta,  Der  zweite  Brief  des  Petrus,  etc. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    173 

able  that  the  reference  is  to  the  transfiguration,  rather  than 
some  other  event,  tlien,  it  is  said,  we  must  postulate  an  ac- 
count of  the  transfiguration  differing  from  that  preserved  in 
the  Synoptists,  and  probably  on  the  whole  a  simpler  one.  For 
in  the  gospels  the  voice  comes  last  and  is  a  less  important  feat- 
ure, whereas  in  Second  Peter  the  voice  precedes  (eW^^e/cr?;?) 
the  glorification,  and,  secondly,  in  the  gospels  the  source  of 
the  glorious  illumination  of  Jesus  is  not  at  all  indicated, 
standing,  as  it  does,  before  the  voice  and  out  of  all  connection 
with  the  v€(f)€\r]  cfiODTivi],  whereas  in  Second  Peter  it  follows 
the  voice  and  is  naturally  connected  with  the  fi€ya\o7rpe7rr]<i 
86^a,  i.  e.,  it  comes  from  the  radiance  of  the  divine  presence. 
There  are  likewise  other  considerations  of  lesser  weight  which 
favor  the  originality  and  simplicity  of  the  account  presup- 
posed by  the  references  in  Second  Peter.  In  the  gospels  the 
incident  of  Moses  and  Elijah  and  the  remarks  of  the  disciples 
connected  with  this  stand  so  prominently  in  the  foreground, 
that  the  real  purpose  of  the  transfiguration  to  confirm  the 
belief  of  the  apostles  in  Jesus'  8vvafii<i  koI  wapovala  is  not 
at  once  apparent,  but  needs  the  historian's  eye  to  detect  its 
connection  with  the  preceding  eschatological  discourse.  That 
it  was  originally  so  intended  is  shown  by  the  careful  indica- 
tion of  time  in  all  the  accounts.  The  fact  that  the  writer  of 
Second  Peter  has  such  a  complete  apprehension  of  this  central 
truth  points  to  the  use  by  him  of  a  clearer  and  more  ex- 
plicit source.  The  aKovere  avrov  appearing  in  the  Synoptists, 
but  not  found  in  Second  Peter,  is  connected  with  the  saying 
of  Moses  (Deut.  18  :  15),  and  has  also  the  further  meaning 
there,  that  God  will  give  the  message  to  the  Messias,  as  he 
did  to  his  type  Moses,  and  this  does  not  all  suit  the  purpose 
of  giving  assurance  to  the  belief  of  the  disciples  in  Christ's 
coming  in  majesty  and  power.  Furthermore,  according  to 
the  record  in  Matthew,  which,  Spitta  holds,  preserves  the 
original  at  this  point,  the  transfiguration  made  no  impression 
on  those  present,  as  is  shown  by  the  irrelevant  words  spoken 
by  Peter  about  the  tabernacles,  which  words  Mark  has 
sought  to  fit  into  this  setting  by  the  mention  of  fear.     All 


174  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

this  serves  to  strengthen  the  previous  impression,  that  the  inci- 
dent of  Moses  and  Elijah  is  really  an  intrusion,  suggested 
possibly  by  the  remarks  of  the  disciples  in  Matthew  17  :  10  ff. 
The  fact  that  they  are  not  mentioned  in  Second  Peter, 
while  not  positive  proof  that  the  writer  was  unacquainted 
with  this  feature,  makes  this  a  possibility.  It  is  the  intro- 
duction of  this  foreign  element  that  has  apparently  brought 
about  the  confusion  and  caused  the  separation  of  Jesus' 
glorification  from  the  cloud  of  light  and  so  deprived  the 
incident  of  its  real  significance.  The  result  has  been  to 
increase  the  supernatural  element,  as  over  against  the  simple, 
modest  event  presupposed  in  Second  Peter.  To  the  objection 
that  the  expression  "holy  mount  "  points  to  the  later  apostolic 
age,  it  is  justly  answered  that  it  is  a  most  natural  designa- 
tion, in  view  of  the  experience  of  Jesus  and  the  disciples. 
As  often  in  the  Old  Testament,  so  here  the  place  is  hallowed 
by  the  divine  presence. 

Much  that  Spitta  develops,  starting  from  the  suggestions 
of  V.  Hofmann  and  Wiesinger,  commends  itself,  but  his 
main  thesis  does  not.  It  rests  almost  entirely  on  an  unwar- 
rantable use  of  the  anacolouthon  in  v.  17.  For,  accepting 
the  translation  "  After  the  voice  had  sounded  forth  "  (nach- 
dem  eine  Stimme  erschollen  war)  it  does  not  follow  that  this 
clause  is  to  be  considered  relatively  to  the  Xa^cop  and  not 
rather,  together  with  this,  as  its  position  suggests,  be  con- 
nected with  the  main  predicate  which  is  left  unexpressed. 
We  need  not  speculate  as  to  what  this  was.  Certainly  the 
course  of  the  thought  does  not  appear  to  have  been  broken 
by  the  next  verse,  and  there  are  various  possibilities  ^  which 
better  suit  the  context  than  those  suggested  by  Spitta. 

With  this  difficulty  out  of  the  way  there  is  no  longer  any 
adequate  reason  for  postulating  an  order  of  events  differing 
from  that  related  in  the  Synoptists.  Nor  do  the  minor  differ- 
ences pointed  out  indicate  that  the  record  of  Second  Peter  is 
independent  of  that  in  the  gospels.  All  these  can  be  better 
explained  as  arising  from  the  adaptation  of  that  incident  to 

»  Cf.  Zahn.  Emieit.,  11.  S.  58. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    175 

the  writer's  purpose.  Looked  at  in  this  light,  they  become 
significant  indications  of  the  way  in  which  he  understood 
the  incident  and  are  accordingly  important  for  our  present 
purpose.  We  shall  later  recur  to  this  and  also  suggest  an 
explanation  of  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  Moses  and 
Elijah. 


176  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


II 

VARIOUS  EXPLANATIONS  OF  THE  TRANSFIGURATION 

1.    The  Vision  Theory 

Explanations  as  to  the  nature  and  significance  of  the 
experience  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  have  differed, 
and  still  differ  widely.  Some  of  them  hardly  deserve  enum- 
eration, while  others  have  still  a  living  interest.  It  is  not 
strange  that  from  earliest  times  men  have  said  that  the  dis- 
ciples beheld  a  vision.  So  Tertullian,i  who  speaks  of  the 
"vision  and  voice,"  and  so,  among  many  others  in  modern 
times,  Bernhard  Weiss. ^  He  holds  that  a  simple  account  in 
the  apostolic  source  has  been  much  amplified  and,  as  usual, 
finds  this  account,  on  the  whole,  best  preserved  in  Matthew, 
although  the  extended  Marcan  interpolations  and  Lucan 
touches  make  its  exact  phraseology  to  a  large  degree  uncer- 
tain. What  was  originally  described  was  beyond  all  ques- 
tion a  vision  sent  from  God,  for  no  human  eye  could  look  on 
the  celestially  transfigured  Jesus.  Visionary  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  men  appear  and  are  recognized.  Then  in  what 
immediately  follows  we  clearly  have  but  a  partial  repetition 
of  the  vision  of  the  Baptist.  Visionary  is  again  the  manner 
in  which  the  experience  ends.  The  eyes  of  the  disciples 
which  had  been  closed  to  the  external  world  are  suddenly 
opened,  and  they  behold  nothing  of  all  that  had  just  engaged 
their  attention,  but  only  Jesus  alone  with  them,  as  usual. 
We  could  not  understand  this  if  an  actual  beholding  of  sen- 
sible phenomena  were  intended.     It  was  the  recognition  of 

1  Adv.  Marcion,  IV.  22. 

2  Leben  Jesu,  2.  Aufl.,  II.  S.  306  ff.  (English,  III.  p.  98  ff.) ;  Com.,  ad  loc. ;  Die 
vier  Evangelien,  ad  loc. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    177 

such  a  difficulty  that  led  the  first  evangelist  to  explain  that 
they  fell  on  their  faces. 

Against  this  idea  of  a  vision  and  the  kindred  view  that 
it  was  a  dream,  it  is  urged  that  a  vision  or  a  dream  is  an 
individual  matter  and  cannot  be  the  common  possession  of 
three  persons.  To  this  Weiss  rejoins :  we  are  not  concerned 
here  with  a  vision  induced  by  merely  natural  causes,  but 
with  one  directly  mediated  by  God.  But  even  then  Jesus' 
previous  conversations  remain  an  important  factor  in  produc- 
ing the  susceptibility  to  the  divine  influence  indispensable  in 
such  an  experience.  Admitting  this,  provision  is  made  for 
the  individual  factor  which  is  demanded.  But  the  change 
of  the  pictures  in  the  vision  which  in  none  of  the  accounts 
are  closely  interrelated,  and  the  words  of  Peter,  intruded 
into  its  midst,  contradict  the  idea  of  a  unity.  The  corre- 
spondence of  the  three  parts  to  the  three  witnesses  suggests 
that  originally  there  was  a  description  of  three  different 
visions  of  the  three  apostles,  and  that  after  the  interchange 
of  experiences  they  became,  as  it  were,  a  common  property 
and  were  transmitted  as  one  common  experience.  If  to 
Peter  it  was  shown  that  Jesus  was  in  full  accord  with  Moses 
and  Elijah,  then  it  may  well  be  that  to  John  it  was  given  to 
see  him  in  his  future  majesty,  as  later,  in  a  grand  vision, 
he  sees  his  future  advent.  Then  James,  the  first  Christian 
martyr,  would  receive  from  God  himself  the  witness  that  the 
one  who  from  this  time  onward,  with  increasing  earnestness, 
demands  obedience,  even  in  suffering,  is  the  Messiah.  As 
for  Peter's  words  about  the  booths  which  occasion  so  much 
perplexity  in  any  theory,  just  as  they  seem  to  have  perplexed 
the  evangelists,  Weiss  says  they  were  possibly  spoken  by 
Peter  after  his  dream,  whereas  now  they  have  become  in- 
serted in  this  difficult  way  between  two  parts  of  the  vision. 
Otherwise  he  repudiates  any  conception  which  would  intro- 
duce objective  reality,  or  blend  vision  with  reality,  or  one 
which  would  so  interpret  the  occurrence  as  to  find  it  primar- 
ily significant  for  Jesus.  Its  purpose  is  rather  to  prepare 
the  apostles  for  the  severe  trial  awaiting  them,  by  showing 

12 


178  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Jesus  in  that  glory  in  which  a  few  days  before  he  had  prom- 
ised to  return.  Beside  this  primary  lesson  there  are  the 
others  above  alluded  to,  namely,  the  agreement  of  his  death 
with  Old  Testament  authorities  and  the  duty  of  obedience  to 
the  Messiah  under  all  circumstances.  Weiss  holds  that  the 
irpSiTov  gives  us  the  key  to  the  understanding  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  the  disciples,  expressed  in  their  question  regarding 
Elijah,  as  they  descended  the  mountain.  They  had,  no 
doubt,  previously  found  it  sufficient  to  regard  the  prophecy  of 
Malachi  as  fulfilled  in  John  the  Baptist.  Jesus  does  not  meet 
their  question  by  entering  upon  a  discussion  aiming  to  cor- 
rect their  false  conception  of  a  literal  fulfilment  of  Malachi 
or  of  their  view  of  the  recent  appearance  of  Elijah,  but  uses 
the  opportunity  to  turn  their  attention  to  the  question  of  the 
hour.  Upholding  the  interpretation  of  the  scribes,  and  de- 
claring that  Elijah  had  already  come,  he  answers  the  real 
difficulty,  that  even  so  the  Messiah  must  still  meet  a  fate 
of  suffering,  by  saying  that  the  nation,  by  its  attitude,  had 
thwarted  the  efforts  of  the  forerunner,  and  that  consequently 
the  Messiah  could  not  hope  for  a  better  fate. 

The  explanation  of  Weiss  deserves  especial  attention  be- 
cause his  championship  of  the  vision  theory  has  greatly  influ- 
enced modern  popular  interpretation,  even  when  his  detailed 
exegesis  has  seemed  too  fragmentary  and  arbitrary.  He 
makes  too  extreme  a  use  of  analysis  to  do  justice  to  the  sense 
of  unity  in  the  scene,  as  it  was  evidently  conceived  of  in 
the  mind  of  the  writer  of  the  second  gospel. 

2.    The  Dream  Theory 

The  idea  that  the  narrative  of  the  transfiguration  is  in  its 
essence  the  record  of  a  dream  involves  a  somewhat  different 
point  of  view.  It  naturally  puts  Luke  forward  as  the  writer 
who  has  kept  the  true  tradition  in  the  particular  relating 
to  the  sleepiness  of  the  disciples,  a  trait  which  it  is  said  no 
one  would  have  ever  invented.  The  content  of  the  dream  is 
traced  to  the  influence  of  the  thoughts  of  the  waking  hours 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    179 

just  preceding,  and  its  particular  form  is  often  accounted  for 
by  the  environment  on  a  mountain  side  amid  the  elements. 
Neander,^  one  of  the  soberer  exponents  of  this  view,  held 
that  Jesus  withdrew  for  prayer  and  would  naturally  pray 
concerning  those  things  of  which  they  were  all  thinking  dur- 
ing those  days.  This  prayer  made  a  deep  impression  on 
the  consciousness  of  the  disciples.  "Die  Herrlichkeit,  in 
welcher  er  sich  ihnen  darstellte,  strahlte  auf  seine  ganze 
Erscheinung  zuriick,  und  er  erschien  ihnen  wie  verklart  von 
einem  himmlischen  Lichte  "  (S.  372  ff.).  Wearied,  they  fell 
asleep.  The  prayer  and  conversation  gave  rise  to  dreams 
(Traumgesichte).  Moses  and  Elijah  appeared  in  heavenly 
glory  beside  Him  who  was  the  goal  of  the  Law  and  Prophets, 
as  also  a  transforming  (verklarendes)  light  was  destined  to 
shine  back  from  him  upon  the  Old  Testament,  and  announced 
to  him  his  impending  fate  at  Jerusalem. 

They  awoke  full  of  this  picture,  and,  while  thus  half 
awake,  "sahen  und  horten  sie  das  Uebrige."  As  to  the  fact 
that  all  had  the  same  dream,  Neander  says  that  possibly  the 
account  in  which  Peter  is  the  main  personage  came  from  his 
report  and  is  synecdochically  connected  with  all  those  who 
were  present. 

3.    The  Naturalistic  Theory 

The  hypothesis  of  a  dream  seeks  an  objective  foundation, 
but,  in  doing  this,  falls  far  short  of  the  postulates  of  the  old 
naturalistic  explanation,  favored,  for  example,  by  Schleier- 
macher.  When  recalled  at  all,  this  latter  view  is  often 
connected  with  the  name  of  Paulus.  He  held  ^  that  Jesus 
withdrew  from  the  disciples  for  prayer.  Not  being  asked 
to  join  in  this  they  fall  asleep.  As  they  awake  in  the  earl}'- 
morning  they  see  Jesus  standing  higher  up  above  them  in 
conference  with  two  men.  The  topic  is  his  exodus,  a  sub- 
ject which  had  agitated  Peter,  who  now  calls  out,  being  in  a 

1  Leben  Jesu  Christi,  6.  Aufl.,  II.  Bd.,  S.  371  ft. 

2  Leben  Jesu,  u.  s.  w.,  1828, 1.  Theil,  II.,  S.  7  fE. 


180  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

confused,  half  waking  state,  and  not  realizing,  himself,  what 
he  is  saying.  Why  his  thoughts  suggested  Moses  is  not 
clear.  A  radiance  comes  from  the  light  of  the  early  dawn, 
reflected  from  the  snow.  A  morning  mist  envelops  the 
men  as  they  are  about  to  go.  The  words  which  sound  forth 
from  the  cloud  were  spoken,  possibly,  by  one  of  them  as  a 
reminder  to  him  and  an  injunction  to  the  disciples. 

This  explanation  is  a  specimen  of  a  method  of  interpre- 
tation which  is  deservedly  little  regarded  to-day.  It  has, 
however,  something  more  than  an  antiquarian  interest,  be- 
cause of  its  effort  to  establish  an  objective  reality  without 
the  use  of  miraculous  elements. 

4.    Tlie  Tlieory  of  an  Objective  Reality 

In  contrast  to  this  naturalistic  explanation  there  has  al- 
ways been  a  considerable  number  who  have  held  to  an  objec- 
tive reality,  but  one  of  miraculous  origin.  The  event  thus 
becomes  the  supreme  and  manifold  miracle  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, far  surpassing  the  resurrection  or  any  other  therein 
recorded.  Olshausen,  who  may  stand  as  an  exponent  of  this 
view,  says,i  "the  simple  literal  sense  of  the  narrative"  in- 
tended by  the  narrators  "vindicates  itself  perfectly  to  every 
Christian  intelligence."  Holding  to  the  Christian  teaching 
as  to  the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  its  glorification,  there 
are  no  essential  difficulties.  In  his  detailed  interpretation  he 
finds  a  place  for  all  the  particulars  of  the  different  narratives. 
He  thinks  there  was  an  outward  radiance  illuminating  all 
and  also  an  inward  one,  shining  forth  from  Jesus.  Peter, 
rapt  in  ecstasy,  voices  with  his  words  a  longing  for  the  king- 
dom of  God.  With  the  coming  of  the  cloud  the  disciples 
are  overwhelmed  with  terror,  partly  at  its  presence  and 
partly  because  they  feel  themselves  thus  severed  from  their 
Lord.  With  the  coming  of  the  voice  they  lose  all  conscious- 
ness and  sink  forward  on  their  faces.  Peter  had  hoped 
Elijah  would  remain  and  enter  upon  his  labors,  and,  since  he 
1  Com.  on  N.  T.,  I.  p.  556.    This  is  the  translation  of  the  fourth  edition. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    181 

has  disappeared,  the  question  arises,  what  is  to  be  made  of 
the  teaching  of  the  scribes.  Jesus'  answer  shows  them  that 
the  prediction  is  not  to  be  understood  absolutely,  and  ex- 
plains why  John,  working  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elijah, 
had  failed  to  carry  out  his  mission.  Olshausen  held  that 
neither  the  coming  of  the  Baptist  nor  this  appearance  of 
Elijah  exhausted  the  prophecy  of  Malachi,  but  that  it  still 
awaited  its  fulfilment  at  Christ's  future  coming. 

The  significance  of  the  transfiguration,  thus  conceived  of, 
is  made  to  be  twofold.  It  was  for  the  confirmation  and  in- 
struction of  the  disciples  who  saw,  as  it  were,  the  solemn 
installation  of  Jesus  into  his  holy  office.  Secondly,  it  was 
an  epoch  in  the  development  of  the  spiritual  life  of  Jesus 
himself,  just  as  the  baptism  and  the  temptation  were.  Jesus, 
at  the  same  time  that  he  was  actively  redeeming,  was  also 
advancing  to  his  own  perfection.  It  was  only  by  degrees 
that  his  humanity  received  into  itself  the  fulness  of  the  God- 
head. The  transfiguration  marks  an  important  stage  in  this 
process. 

In  all  this  Olshausen  is  far  from  logical.  He  ignores  or 
does  not  feel  the  many  difficulties  which  present  themselves 
to  others  who  are  equally  earnest  in  their  search  for  truth. 
He  leaves  an  open  door  for  doceticism  and  other  theories 
equally  inconsistent  with  that  held  at  present  regarding  the 
person  of  Jesus. 

5.    The  Mytliieal  Theory 

Passing  by  the  view  which  holds  to  a  historical  basis,  but 
a  figurative  representation  in  oriental  style,  whose  details  are 
to  be  interpreted  allegorically,  ^  we  may  next  consider  one 
which  differs  from  all  these  others  in  assuming  neither  a 
subjective  nor  objective  reality,  but  holds  that  our  record  is 
a  literary  fiction.     This  so-called  mythical  view  had  a  grow- 

*  i.  e.,  the  outward  radiance  stands  for  the  inward  illumination  in  the  minds 
of  the  disciples ;  the  high  mountain  represents  the  height  of  knowledge  which 
they  attained  and  the  overshadowing  cloud  its  fading  away,  etc. 


182  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ing  acceptance  throughout  the  last  century,  especially  toward 
its  close,  when  the  reaction  against  Strauss  had  lost  some- 
thing of  its  intensity.  It  is  to-day  widely  accepted  in  its 
essence  by  scholars  outside  the  ultra -conservative  school.  It 
was  ably  and  clearly  formulated  by  Strauss,  but  has  been 
somewhat  elaborated  since  his  time.  Some  particulars  put 
forward  by  him  as  tentative  suggestions  have  become  incor- 
porated as  essential  parts  of  the  theory.  H.  Holtzmann  is  a 
distinguished  representative  of  this  view,^  asserting  that  the 
narrative  of  the  transfiguration  is  the  most  brilliant  of  all 
the  poetic  didactic  productions  of  primitive  Christianity. 
We,  however,  may  do  best  to  turn  to  the  writings  of  another 
eminent  exponent.  Professor  Pfleiderer,  who  formulates  his 
exposition  very  clearly  and  concisely. ^  To  be  sure,  in  many 
of  the  details  his  view  is  individual  rather  than  representa- 
tive, but  his  main  contention  can  stand  as  typical.  He  not 
only  finds  the  account  in  Mark  relatively  the  most  original, 
but  considers  the  entire  narrative  a  composition  of  this 
writer.  After  the  manner  of  historians  and  biographers  the 
evangelist  pauses,  as  he  reaches  the  culminating  point  which 
marks  the  transition  in  his  presentation,  and  sets  forth  the 
significance  of  this  moment  in  itself  and  in  view  of  develop- 
ments which  are  impending.  This  he  does,  according  to 
older  custom,  partly  by  discourse  put  into  the  hero's  mouth 
and  partly  by  the  employment  of  allegorical  imagery.  It  is 
evident,  at  a  glance,  says  Pfleiderer,  that  we  do  not  have  to 
do  here  with  real  history,  but  with  religious  ideas  clothed 
in  the  form  of  apocalyptic  vision  and  Old  Testament  myth. 
As  the  Galilean  ministry  opened  with  such  an  idealistic 
presentation,  in  like  manner  it  closes  with  this  account  of  the 
transfiguration. 

The  elements  employed  by  the  evangelist  can  be  quite 
fully  indicated.  The  fundamental  motive,  underlying  all,  is 
the  dogmatic  idea  of  Paul  set  forth  in  Second  Corinthians  3  : 
1  to  4  :  6.    The  glory  shining  from  the  face  of  Moses  on  Sinai 

1  Com.,  ad  loc. 

2  Das  Urchristenthum,  u.  9.  w.,  S.  387  £f. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    183 

was  only  a  transient  manifestation,  while  the  risen  Lord,  who 
is  spirit,  is  the  abiding  revelation  of  this  glory.  The  trans- 
figuration scene  sets  forth  by  way  of  anticipation  the  glorifi- 
cation of  the  risen  spiritual  Christ  and  his  exaltation  above 
Moses  and  the  prophets.  The  individual  features  in  this 
representation  are  derived  from  the  Old  Testament  legend  of 
Moses'  transfiguration  on  Mount  Sinai  (Exod.  24).  The  three 
intimates  who  join  in  the  ascent,  the  six  days,  the  reflected 
heavenly  glory,  the  scene  at  the  foot  of  the  mountain,  when 
they  descend,  standing  in  contrast  to  what  has  just  happened, 
all  suggest  at  once  the  relationship.  This  heavenly  form  of 
light  is  the  one  in  which  Christ  appeared  as  the  risen  one, 
and  is  also  that  into  which  his  followers  will  be  transformed. 
As  in  Enoch,  God's  garment  is  brighter  than  sun  or  snow, 
so  here  the  raiment  of  Jesus  surpasses  in  its  brilliant  white- 
ness the  work  of  any  fuller  on  earth.  Moses  and  Elijah 
appearing  as  representatives  of  the  old  covenant,  witness  to 
Jesus'  exaltation  to  lordship  of  the  new  and  bring  their 
homage,  as  the  firstfruits  of  the  Old  Testament  congrega- 
tion (Gottesgemeinde).  Peter,  misunderstanding  this,  thinks 
it  means  that  henceforth  Law  and  Prophets  and  Gospel  shall 
dwell  together.  This  seems  to  him  a  beautiful  union  of  the 
old  and  new  covenants  and  the  ideal  for  Christian  life,  as  it 
probably  really  did  to  the  historical  Peter  and  to  the  Jewish- 
Christian  community.  To  the  writer  of  the  gospel,  who 
was  imbued  with  Pauline  thought,  this  view  seemed  to  rest 
on  defective  knowledge  which  sprang  from  a  timid  faint- 
heartedness (angstlichem  Kleinmuth),  just  as  Peter's  con- 
duct appeared  to  Paul  in  Antioch  in  this  same  light.  This 
explains  his  use  of  eK^o^oc  iyivovro^  which,  taken  literally 
in  the  context,  involves  a  strange  contradiction.  In  opposi- 
tion to  such  a  conception,  the  truth  of  the  gospel  is  declared 
to  the  disciples  by  the  heavenly  voice,  "  JTiis  one,  i.  e.,  Jesus 
and  onli/  he,  is  my  beloved  son  —  hear  ye  him."  This  declara- 
tion repeats  once  more  that  given  at  the  baptism,  with  the 
added  admonition  to  recognize  him  henceforth  as  the  only 
authority  for  the  new  church  (Gottesgemeinde).     That  even 


184  BIBLICAL   AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  highest  authorities  of  the  old  covenant  must  give  way 
before  him  is  then  set  forth  (veranschaulicht)  by  the  sudden 
vanishing  of  Moses  and  Elijah,  so  that  the  disciples  who 
sought  to  assure  an  abiding  union  of  these  witnesses  with 
Jesus  find  themselves  suddenly  alone  with  him.  How,  asks 
Pfleiderer,  can  one  symbolize  more  clearly  the  thought  of 
Second  Corinthians,  that  the  majesty  of  the  old  covenant 
vanishes  before  the  abiding  majesty  of  Christ,  as  the  Lord 
who  is  the  Spirit?  The  evangelist,  by  his  record  of  the  in- 
junction of  Jesus  to  tell  no  man  what  they  had  seen  till  the 
Son  of  Man  be  risen  from  the  dead,  together  with  the  added 
statement  that  they  did  as  commanded,  and  continued  to 
wonder  what  the  rising  from  the  dead  should  mean,  makes  it 
sufficiently  intelligible  that  what  he  here  intended  to  relate  is 
not  a  real  incident  in  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  but  a  pictorial 
representation,  anticipating  that  transfiguration  of  Jesus  into 
the  spiritual  Son  of  God  and  Lord  of  the  Church  (Gemeinde) 
which  resulted  after  his  resurrection  and  from  the  increased 
apprehension  of  the  significance  of  his  death  and  resurrec- 
tion. And  this  again  is  but  another  formulation  of  the 
Pauline  view,  Second  Corinthians  5  :  16  f.,  "Even  though 
we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  we  know  him 
so  no  more."  There  is,  then,  no  doubt  that  in  the  account  of 
the  transfiguration  we  have  an  allegorical  fiction  (Dichtung) 
of  the  evangelist  which  is  calculated  to  set  forth  Pauline  con- 
ceptions in  imagery  borrowed  from  sacred  tradition.  This 
meaning  of  the  narrative  stands  out  in  full  clearness  only 
in  ALark,  who  is  its  author.  The  other  accounts  introduce 
foreign  elements  and  show  that  the  original  meaning  was  no 
longer  understood. 

The  question  about  Elijah  probably  had  to  do  with  a  dis- 
pute between  the  oldest  communion  and  its  Jewish  opponents 
and  is  introduced  here  by  Mark  because  he  has  just  spoken 
of  an  appearance  of  Elijah. 

When  we  consider  Pfleiderer's  view  and  examine  the  ac- 
count in  Mark  in  the  light  of  Exodus  24  and  34,  we  find  that 
the  points  of  affinity  are  not  so  striking  as  those  of  differ- 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    185 

ence.  Three  special  companions  are  there  named,  to  be  sure, 
but  with  them  are  also  the  seventy  elders.  And,  finally,  it 
is  Moses  who  goes  alone  up  into  the  mount.  It  was  when 
he  came  down  from  the  mountain,  according  to  the  account 
of  Exodus  34,  that  the  skin  of  his  face  shone.  These  details 
are  not  very  suggestive,  for  a  much  better  explanation  of  the 
three  companions  is  found  in  Mark  5  :  37  and  14  :  83. 
They  constitute  an  inner  circle,  which  shares  the  privacy  of 
these  most  sacred  of  Jesus'  experiences.  The  radiance  finds 
a  parallel  in  many  accounts  of  divine  manifestations  given 
in  the  biblical  and  apocryphal  writings.  It  should  be  noticed 
that  Mark  uses  a  very  different  word  in  his  description 
{fjb6Tafiop^ovv)  from  that  appearing  in  the  LXX  translation 
of  Exodus  34  {ho^d^eaOai).  Further,  had  the  writer  aimed  to 
give  the  representation  of  such  glory  as  was  reflected  in  the 
face  of  Moses,  he  would  most  naturally  have  formulated  his 
description  more  nearly  like  his  model.  Especially  would 
the  glory  be  expected  to  be  of  greater  continuance  and  mag- 
nificence. Strauss  cites  ^  a  passage  from  a  late  Jewish  writ- 
ing which  alludes  to  Moses'  glory,  and  says  that  Jesus  must 
have  shone  from  the  one  extremity  of  the  world  to  the  other. 
Since  he  was  not  endowed  with  brightness  of  any  kind, 
but  altogether  like  other  men,  it  is  clear  we  are  not  to 
believe  in  him.  In  his  Popular  Life  of  Jesus  Strauss  in- 
troduced this  citation  into  the  body  of  his  work  and  makes 
it  the  starting-point  for  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the 
transfiguration  myth.^ 

To  this  proposition  it  can  be  answered  that  the  details  in 
the  gospels  show  no  evidence  of  such  a  purpose.  It  is  only 
when  we  consider  the  description  of  Yahw^'s  descent  in  the 
cloud  and  the  appearance  of  his  glory  on  the  mountain, 
together  with  his  calling  from  out  the  midst  of  the  cloud 
that  we  seem  to  meet  with  details  that  have  noticeably  influ- 
enced Mark's  portrayal.  And  it  is  probable  that  they  did 
so,  but  this  can  be  readily  understood  in  view  of  the  use  by 

1  Lehen  Jesu,  1840,  4.  Aufl.,  11.  S.  256  (English,  p.  613). 

2  Das  Leben  Jesu,  fur  das  deutsche  Volk  bearbeitet,  1864,  S.  516  f. 


186  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

New  Testament  writers  of  Old  Testament  conceptions  and 
imagery.  The  descriptions  of  the  later  theophony  are  natu- 
rally conformed  to  these  existing  models.  In  the  present 
account  this  is  doubtless  the  case,  but  at  the  same  time  there 
are  enough  peculiar  features  to  attest  its  individuality  and 
show  that  it  is  not  a  mere  mechanical  reproduction  without 
further  content.  The  narrative  of  Mark,  being,  as  it  is  ac- 
cording to  Pfleiderer,  the  original,  does  not  bear  the  traces 
of  such  a  manufactured  product.  It  has  too  many  difficul- 
ties and  obscurities.  It  furthermore  still  remains  to  make 
clear  the  presence  of  an  adequate  motive  to  explain  the 
composition  of  such  an  account.  If  one  could  succeed 
measurably  in  this  he  must  meet  the  great  objection,  no 
more  lightly  to  be  overcome  here  than  elsewhere,  that  such 
a  pure  fiction  could  not  be  passed  off  and  accepted  at  such  an 
early  date. 

6.    Oscar  Holtzmann's  Theory 

Since  this  paper  was  begun,  the  Lehen  Jesu  ^  of  Oscar 
Holtzmann  has  appeared,  and  we  may  well  add  his  view  to 
those  already  mentioned.  He  thinks  that  the  understanding 
of  the  transfiguration  can  be  best  attained  by  approaching  it 
from  the  conversation  occurring  on  the  way  down  the  moun- 
tain. He  compares  Jesus'  prohibition  at  that  time  with  the 
similar  one  after  the  confession  of  Peter,  and  also  the  men- 
tion in  both  instances  of  impending  suffering  and  rejection, 
as  if,  he  thinks,  for  the  first  time.  There  is  a  further 
resemblance  in  the  location  of  the  two  incidents  in  the 
mountains  of  the  region  of  Baniyas  (Paneas).  Furthermore, 
Jesus,  through  his  words  confirming  Peter's  confession,  was 
undoubtedly  elevated  in  the  eyes  of  the  apostles  to  a  lumi- 
nous height  and  close  to  the  greatest  men  of  the  past.  From 
this  time  forward  they  recognized  in  him  the  Son  of  God, 
whose  word  must  be  heeded.  All  these  are  points  of  resem- 
blance so  marked  that  they  make  the  experience  at  Peter's 

1  Tiibingen  nnd  Leipzig,  1901,  S.  267  £f. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION  187 

confession  to  be  duplicated  in  the  incident  of  the  transfigura- 
tion.^ The  latter  cannot  occupy  an  independent  position 
alongside  of  the  former  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  but  must  be 
taken  rather  as  a  companion  piece  portraying  the  same  event 
from  a  subjective  point  of  view.  It  represents  what  was 
experienced  inwardly  by  the  disciples,  or  some  one  of  them, 
possibly  Peter,  while  the  outward  incidents  were  taking 
place,  as  described  in  the  narrative  of  Peter's  confession. 
Rejecting  the  conception  that  the  disciples  could  have 
thought  Elijah's  appearance  a  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy  of 
Malachi,  he  says  it  is  not  easy  to  see  what  their  question  had 
to  do  with  the  transfiguration,  but,  put  after  the  Messianic 
confession,  it  is  a  trustworthy  historical  reminiscence  of  a 
question  of  one  of  the  disciples  who  had  evidently  previously 
taken  Jesus  for  Elijah.  As  for  the  exact  designation  of  time 
with  which  all  the  accounts  open  and  which  seems  to  point 
to  a  subsequent  independent  event,  he  says  that  in  the  case 
of  Luke,  anyway,  and  also,  probably,  in  the  parallels,  this 
has  reference  to  the  reading  of  the  section  of  the  gospels 
containing  the  transfiguration  for  the  lesson  of  the  Sunday 
following  that  on  which  Peter's  confession  was  the  regular 
pericope.  As  an  example  of  a  like  instance  in  the  gospels  he 
cites  John  20  :  26.  That  such  a  highly  organized  scheme 
of  church  service  could  not  have  existed  when  Mark  was 
written  he  thinks  is  not  shown  by  any  extant  evidence. 
According  to  this  view  of  the  relationship,  it  appears  that 
Peter's  confession  took  place  during  a  conversation  between 
Jesus  and  the  three  intimates. 

Holtzmann's  mode  of  interpretation,  we  thus  see,  is  allied 
to  the  visionary  hypothesis,  in  holding  to  a  subjective  expe- 
rience. There  is  also  an  element  of  the  allegorical  concep- 
tion in  the  interpretation  of  some  details.  The  main  support 
for  his  position  is  found,  not  so  much  in  the  resemblance 
of  the  accounts  themselves,  as  in  that  of  the  conversations 
which  immediately  follow  in  both  cases.    But  such  similarity 

^  This  position  agrees  strikingly  with  that  of  Professor  Bacon  in  the  article 
previously  referred  to. 


188  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

does  not  suffice  for  the  purpose.  It  is,  in  the  first  place,  too 
general,  and,  secondly,  that  which  does  actually  appear  can 
be  adequately  accounted  for  by  the  great  theme  of  reflection 
and  conversation  during  these  momentous  days.  Jesus'  pro- 
hibitions would  simply  attest  an  underlying  purpose  which 
remains  unchanged.  The  explanation  offered  of  the  explicit 
dating  of  the  incident  will  hardly  commend  itself,  until  proof 
is  forthcoming  of  such  a  highly  developed  order  of  Sunday 
service  at  this  early  date.  As  for  the  identification  of  the 
geographical  situations,  these  are  expressly  contrasted.  In 
the  first  instance  they  were  proceeding  on  the  way,  and  in 
the  second  they  had  drawn  aside  from  this  and  were  on  a 
high  mountain.  So  also  the  persons  are  carefully  distin- 
guished in  the  second  scene,  as  being  different  from  the 
preceding  grouping.  And,  over  and  above  these  and  like 
differences  which  might  be  pointed  out,  is  the  difference  in 
detail  and  content  in  the  main  accounts.  The  importance 
given  to  Moses  and  Elijah  in  the  transfiguration  cannot  be 
even  remotely  traced  in  the  confession  of  Peter.  In  other 
respects,  also,  the  details  are  outwardly  so  unlike  and  of 
such  different  import  as  to  preclude  the  idea  of  identification 
or  intimate  relationship.  Jesus  is  undoubtedly  a  central 
figure  in  both  instances,  but  this  does  not  seem  at  all  strik- 
ing. If,  as  Holtzraann  suggests,  it  is  possibly  Peter's  in- 
ward experience  which  has  been  handed  down  to  us,  and  he 
was  the  authority  for  Mark's  narrative,  then  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  the  evangelist  was  in  doubt  as  to  the  true  rela- 
tionship of  the  events,  and  that  he  could  have  failed  to  make 
this  intelligible  in  his  report. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF    THE   TRANSFIGURATION    189 


III 

THE  HISTORICAL  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THE 
TRANSFIGUKATION 

1.    The  Meaning  and  Importance  of  the  Appearing  of  Moses 
and  Elijah 

In  seeking  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  the  transfiguration 
we  must  turn,  first  of  all,  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  narrative 
itself  and  ask  what  is  to  be  considered  the  feature  of  central 
importance.  With  all  their  points  of  difference,  the  evan- 
gelists seem  to  agree  in  making  this  the  appearance  and  con- 
versation of  Moses  and  Elijah.  For  it  is  not  so  much  set 
forth  that  Jesus  was  transfigured,  as  that  while  in  this  state 
these  men  appeared  and  talked  with  him,  and  the  heavenly 
voice  (Bath-Qol)  connected  with  their  departure  is  linked 
by  the  aKovere  avrov  with  the  appearance  of  Moses.  These 
words  contain  that  which  is  new  in  what  is  otherwise  a 
reproduction  of  the  message  given  at  the  baptisnf  What, 
then,  can  the  coming  and  conversation  of  these  men,  thus 
associated,  mean  ?  According  to  New  Testament  usage,  when 
Moses  speaks,  it  is  the  voice  of  law  which  is  heard.  His 
name  is  often  connected  with  its  commands  and  testimonies.^ 
Sometimes  the  word  book  or  law  appears  also,  while  at  others 
we  have  simply  "Moses  commanded  "  or  "Moses  said."  We 
can  hardly  think  of  him  in  any  capacity  other  than  that  of 
promulgator  and  representative  of  Old  Testament  legislation. 

The  presence  of  Elijah,  however,  leads  us  to  think  most 
naturally  of  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  and  the  widespread  ex- 

1  Cf.,  e.  g.,  Mark  1  :  44 ;  7  :  10;  10  :  3,  4;  12 :  19,  26  and  parallels. 


190  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

pectation  of  his  work  of  restoration  as  messianic  forerunner. 
This  is  suggested  in  the  later  inquiry  of  the  disciples.  But 
we  have  already  seen  that  almost  without  exception  exposi- 
tors have  found  it  difficult  to  explain  the  relation  of  this 
reference  to  the  preceding  appearance.  It  has  been  forgot- 
ten that  Elijah  had  another  significance  for  later  Judaism. 
He  was  before  all  others  the  prophet  in  Jewish  tradition.^ 
And  not  without  reason,  for  he  appears  in  Biblical  history  as 
the  first  great  prophetic  leader.  The  Old  Testament  narra- 
tives show  that  he  was  early  given  an  exalted  place  in  the 
national  history.  It  was  but  natural  that  he  should  come  to 
stand  as  the  inaugurator  and  typical  representative  of  the 
grand  prophetic  succession  that  never  ceased  to  voice  the 
demands  of  a  jealous  God. 

The  companionship  of  Moses  and  Elijah,  striking  as  it  is, 
is  not  an  unnatural  one.  We  find  their  names  often  linked 
together  in  Jewish  tradition.  The  likeness  of  certain  of  their 
experiences  was  wont  to  be  pointed  out.  Various  localities 
became  celebrated  by  reason  of  their  presence.  Both  had 
been  rapt  away  from  the  world  of  mortals  in  such  a  myste- 
rious manner  that  Moses,  as  well  as  Elijah,  was  by  some 
thought  of  as  not  having  tasted  death.  ^  One  was  venerated 
as  the  giver  of  the  law,  and  the  other  as  its  restorer.^  If 
they  came  to  talk  with  Jesus  on  the  Mount  of  Transfigura- 
tion it  seems  but  natural,  under  these  circumstances,  to 
think  that  they  would  bring  to  him  the  message  of  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets.  If  Moses  was  to  undertake  this  mission 
for  the  law,  who  more  appropriately  than  Elijah  could  be  his 
companion  and  render  a  like  service  for  prophecy?  These 
two,  together,  would  then  represent  the  body  of  Old  Testa- 
ment writings  elsewhere  spoken  of  as  the  Law  and  Prophets.* 

1  Cf.  Wisdom  of  Jesus  Sir.,  48 :  1  ff . 

2  Cf.  Bousset,  The  Antichrist  Legend,  p.  208. 

*  For  this  rabbinical  reference  and  others  dealing  with  their  relationship,  cf. 
Wetstein,  N.  T.  Com.,  p.  436.     Cf.  further,  Esth.  rah.,  3,  9. 

♦  Cf.  Luke  16  :  29  :  "  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets ;  let  them  hear  them." 
Acts  26  :  22  :  "  Saying  nothing  but  what  Moses  and  the  prophets  did  say  shoald 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    191 

The  only  other  way  in  which  we  could  seek  to  find  some 
special  meaning  in  their  presence  would  be  to  take  our 
starting-point  from  the  office  of  messianic  herald  or  witness, 
so  prevailingly  connected  with  Elijah.  But  in  nearly  all 
the  earliest  Jewish  and  Christian  references  he  is  alone  in 
this  work.i  So  far  we  know  of  nothing  pointing  to  a  con- 
trary tradition  in  pre-Christian  Judaism. ^  There  is,  how- 
ever, later  on  in  Fourth  Ezra  (6  :  26),  evidence  of  a  Jewish 
tradition  that  all  the  illustrious  heroes  of  old,  who  had 
been  translated  and  had  not  tasted  death  from  the  time  of 
their  birth,  would  appear  ^  at  the  end  of  the  world.  Then 
the  hearts  of  the  dwellers  of  earth  would  be  changed  and 
receive  a  new  spirit.  It  is  perhaps  just  to  infer  from  the 
juxtaposition  of  these  statements  that  the  writer  thought 
the  change  of  heart  was  to  result  from  the  preaching  of  these 
men  who  would  appear  as  witnesses.*  We  also  find  it 
affirmed  repeatedly  in  the  Apocalypse  of  Baruch  ^  that 
Baruch  (and  perhaps  others  also  [?],  13  :  5;  24:  2;  25  : 1) 
was  to  be  preserved  to  the  consummation  of  the  times  that 
he  might  be  for  a  testimony.  As  evidence  that  Moses  in 
particular  was  to  be  associated  with  Elijah  we  have,  so  far 
as  I  am  aware,  only  a  late  rabbinical  reference  of  doubt- 
ful interpretation^  and  the  passage  in  Revelation  11  :  3  ff. 
For  the  two  witnesses,  who  are  here  spoken  of  as  standing 
before  the  Lord,  would  seem,  from  the  power  assigned  to 
them  (v.  6  f.),  to  be  Elijah  and  Moses.     In  spite,  however, 

1  Cf.  Bousset,  Offenharung,  S.  375.  and  The  Antichrist  Legend,  pp.  207  and  210. 
Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  3.  Aufl.,  II.  S.  524  ff. 

^  Just  what  Bousset  means  {^Offenharung,  S.  375  f.)  by  saying  the  idea  of  the 
return  of  Moses  is  found  (findet  sich)  in  John  1 :  21 ;  6:14;  7  :  40,  etc.,  I  do  not 
understand. 

8  Probably  WT1.  Ci.GxjLokQlia'K&vA.z^ch'sApokryphenundPseudepigraphendes 
Alten  Testaments,  II.  S.  366  an.  h. 

*  So  Gunkel,  loc.  cit. 

6  13  :  3  ;  25  :  1 ;  76  :  2;  and  cf.  43  :  2  ;  46  :  7  ;  48  :  30.  For  references  to  the 
translation  of  Elijah,  Enoch,  Moses  and  Ezra,  v.  Charles,  The  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch  (1896),  p.  73,  note  to  v.  7. 

6  Deut.  rah.,  3,  near  the  close.  This  saying  is  assigned  to  R.  Jochanan,  who 
belongs  to  the  last  third  of  the  first  century. 


192  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

of  the  clear  allusion  to  the  Egyptian  plagues,  early  Chris- 
tian interpretation  made  Enoch  to  be  here  the  companion 
of  Elijah.  1  Bousset,  who  has  given  much  attention  to  the 
early  traditions,  is  at  a  loss  for  an  explanation  of  the  origin 
of  the  idea  of  the  two  witnesses.  It  cannot,  he  thinks,  in 
any  case  have  emanated  from  a  Jewish  source.^  In  the 
course  of  his  remarks  he  refers  to  the  account  of  the  trans- 
figuration as  a  passage  where  the  idea  is  already  present. 
He  does  not  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  its  significance,  but 
apparently  thinks  it  has  come  in  from  some  non-Jewish 
source,  or  from  an  account  influenced  by  such  a  source.^ 
Without  adequate  proof,  however,  we  are  not  warranted 
in  assuming  such  an  influence  here  in  the  Gospels  whose 
earlier  presence  is  nowhere  apparent.  Furthermore,  an  ex- 
amination of  the  time  and  circumstances,  when  these  men 
appear,  and  the  office  assigned  to  them  shows  the  parallelism 
to  the  passage  in  Revelation  is  more  apparent  than  real.  All 
the  weight  of  tradition  is  against  such  an  identification  of  the 
conceptions.  Finally,  and  most  convincingly  of  all,  if  the 
disciples  had  regarded  Moses  in  such  a  light,  they  must  have 
mentioned  him  together  with  Elijah  in  their  question.* 

Assuming  now  that  it  is  as  representatives  of  the  law  and 
of  prophecy  that  Moses  and  Elijah  appear,  what  does  it  mean 
when  it  is  merely  said  that  they  were  talking  with  him  ?  To 
understand  this  we  have  to  remember  when  it  was  that  they 
were  doing  this.  It  was  six  days  after  Jesus  had  welcomed 
the  declaration  of  Peter  and  for  the  first  time  plainly  pointed 
out  the  rejection  and  suffering  which  was  soon  to  be  his  lot. 
The  narrative  gives  us  the  impression  that  after  that  time 
this  subject  was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  Master  and  dis- 
ciples. How  the  intervening  days  were  spent,  and  what 
other  experiences  came  to  them,  we  are  not  told,  but  are  left 

1  Bousset,  Offenbarung,  S.  376 ;  Antichrist  Legend,  p.  203  f. 

2  Antichrist  Legend,  p.  210.  This  seems  to  be  a  conjecture  of  doubtful  value 
in  view  of  the  above  passages  from  Baruch  and  Fourth  Ezra,  to  which  Bousset 
makes  no  reference. 

8  Op.  cit.,  p.  207. 

*  This  of  course  presupposes  that  Mark  9:13  continues  the  previous  narrative. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    193 

to  infer  that  this  same  strange  theme  was  still  filling  their 
thoughts  six  days  later,  when  Moses  and  Elijah  appeared. 
Thus  the  context  seems  to  indicate  that  these,  too,  came  to 
take  part  in  its  consideration,  bringing  that  which  was  appro- 
priate from  out  the  law  and  out  of  prophecy.  This  was 
evidently  the  understanding  of  the  third  evangelist  when  he 
adds :  "  They  were  telling  him  of  his  exodus  which  he  was 
about  to  fulfil  in  Jerusalem"  (9  :  31).  In  the  other  gospels 
the  mention  of  the  mere  fact  that  they  were  talking  with 
Jesus  is  apparently  felt  to  be  enough.  This  was  what  was 
significant  in  the  scene.  It  was  not  so  much  what  they 
said  as  that  they  spoke  at  all  to  one  who  saw  such  a  future 
opening  before  him. 

Omitting  for  the  time  all  other  details,  we  find,  then,  that 
what  is  primarily  set  forth  in  the  transfiguration  is  the  sanc- 
tion given  to  Jesus  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  in  this  dark 
and  threatening  hour  of  his  ministry.  This  is  the  meaning 
of  the  approval  of  Moses  and  Elijah,  shown  by  the  fact  of 
their  conversation  with  Jesus. 

The  first  impression  may  not  unnaturally  be  that  such  an 
interpretation  is  entirely  inadequate  for  an  incident  to  which 
so  much  prominence  is  given  in  the  gospel  history.  Many 
expositors  have  always  been  ready  to  assume  without  ques- 
tion this  much  as  incidental,  before  setting  out  to  find  the 
real  meaning.  But  to  find  too  many  meanings  is  often  to 
find  no  meaning  at  all.  We  shall  be  better  prepared  to  esti- 
mate the  importance  which  this  interpretation  really  gives 
to  the  transfiguration,  if  we  review  the  historical  setting  in 
which  it  appears. 

2.    The  Events  of  the  Period  Reviewed 

Our  synoptic  narratives  are  quite  closely  parallel  in  their 
presentation  of  the  events  of  this  northern  sojourn.  What- 
ever uncertainty  there  may  be  elsewhere  as  to  the  arrange- 
ment and  sequence  of  details  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  these 
writings  have  made  the  place  of   this  incident  of   Csesarea 

13 


194  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Philippi  so  clear,  that  there  is  universal  agreement  in  under- 
standing their  testimony.  It  is  also  as  generally  recognized 
that  this  period  marks  a  culminating  point  in  the  lives  of 
both  Master  and  disciples.  That  Jesus  should  withdraw 
from  Galilee  was  inevitable.  He  did  not  go  forth  until  the 
growing  opposition  and  hostility  made  all  further  open  activ- 
ity an  impossibility.  To  have  remained  longer  would  have 
been  to  invite  destruction.  Since  the  feeding  of  the  multi- 
tude popular  enthusiasm  ceased  to  offer  the  requisite  pro- 
tection. A  crisis  was  at  hand  which  could  not  be  longer 
deferred.  As  often  before,  so  now  especially,  it  would  seem 
that  Jesus  felt  the  need  of  retirement  for  communion  with 
the  Father.  He  turns  northward  with  the  few  companions 
who  still  recognize  in  him  their  master.  Where  else  could 
he  turn,  when  in  his  own  nation  he  was  everywhere  met 
with  this  opposition  of  indifference  and  open  hostility?  But 
not  only  did  he  seek  retirement  for  himself,  but  more  espe- 
cially for  this  little  company  that  still  clung  to  him.  How 
had  all  the  recent  experiences  affected  them?  Other  men 
had  heard  of  his  fame,  felt  the  power  of  his  presence,  won- 
dered at  his  strange  teaching,  and  been  led  by  all  this  to 
think  of  John  the  Baptist  come  again  in  other  form,  of  Elijah 
appearing  as  the  promised  herald  of  the  messianic  age,  or  of 
the  prophet  so  long  expected,  and  that  was  all.  And  what 
did  these  think  who  had  been  so  closely  connected  with  his 
work  and  ministry?  "But  who  say  ^e  that  I  am?"  Peter 
answereth  and  saith  unto  him:  "Thou  art  the  Messiah." 
We  do  not  wonder  at  the  exultation  on  the  part  of  Jesus, 
called  forth  by  this  rejoinder.  For  what  did  this  simple 
answer  mean?  It  meant  that  one,  at  least,  had  so  far 
entered  into  the  secret  of  Jesus'  life  and  been  so  mastered 
by  it  that  the  present  apparent  contradiction  in  outward  cir- 
cumstances did  not  shake  his  confidence.  He  felt  that  the 
promised  one  was  present  in  that  familiar  form  before  him. 
He  saw  the  truth,  and  yet  not  altogether.  He  so  far  com- 
prehended it  that  apparent  failure  in  the  present  did  not 
make  him  doubt,  but  from  what  follows  we  see  that  he  had 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION  195 

reached  only  a  partial  comprehension.  In  his  conception  the 
future  must  be  glorious  still.  Just  how  he  thought  the  Mas- 
ter was  to  consummate  his  kingdom,  or  in  what  way  he  con- 
ceived of  it  as  dependent  on  his  will,  is  not  apparent,  but 
there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  usual  messianic  picture 
of  his  contemporaries  had  been  essentially  modified.  The 
nature  of  the  kingdom  and  the  office  of  its  King  was  doubt- 
less thought  of  in  no  new  way.  He  was  still  far  from  ready 
to  enter  into  the  real  mind  of  the  Master.  And  Jesus,  while 
welcoming  the  divinely-sent  insight  set  forth  in  his  confes- 
sion, was  no  doubt  conscious  of  this.  He  proceeds  forthwith 
to  point  out  that  the  immediate  future  would  bring  to  light 
a  side  of  his  messianic  office  which  Peter  had  not  at  all 
anticipated.  Jesus  could  now  do  this  for  the  first  time  with 
the  hope  of  being  properly  understood.  Peter  and  those  of 
his  companions  who  were  like-minded  were  now  ready  for  fur- 
ther instruction  and  must  receive  it.  They  must  come  to 
face  the  problem  which  rose  within  Jesus'  own  mind  and 
had  been  engaging  him  during  all  this  period.  As  he  had 
watched  the  growing  opposition,  more  and  more  openly 
expressed,  the  possibility  of  his  final  rejection  and  violent 
death  had  become  clearer  every  day.  And  now  at  last  there 
was  no  longer  room  to  hope  that  the  message  of  love  which 
he  proclaimed  would  gain  entrance  into  the  hearts  of  any 
considerable  number  of  his  nation.  Remaining  here  in  the 
North,  awa}"  from  the  centres  of  his  teaching,  he  was  virtu- 
ally in  exile.  He  could  not  continue  in  this  remote  district. 
To  do  this,  or  turn  anywhere  outside  to  the  Gentiles  or  to 
the  Jews  of  the  dispersion,  would  mean  the  confession  of 
failure  and  mistake,  the  giving  up  of  the  earthly  mission 
which  the  Father  had  intrusted  to  him.  To  go  away  was 
manifestly  impossible.  Nothing  remained  but  to  return  and 
face  the  issue  among  his  own  people,  in  their  own  land  and 
in  its  most  influential  centre.  Some  such  formulation  as  this 
seems  demanded  for  the  problem  which  pressed  itself  in  upon 
his  consciousness,  and  in  some  such  way  as  this  it  had  appar- 
ently found  its  solution.     Dark  as  the  present  seemed,  it 


196  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

was  not  without  its  brightness.  His  labor  had  not  been  in 
vain.  Peter's  confession  was  an  outward  attestation  that 
the  Father's  will  was  being  done.  That  these,  to  whom 
had  been  revealed  so  much  that  was  hidden  from  others, 
might  share  and  understand  his  further  mission,  was  a  pros- 
pect which  must  have  brought  joy  and  gladness.  The  time 
had  come  to  point  out  to  them  why  the  only  way  remaining 
was  to  return  and  labor  where  love  called,  and  meet  the  in- 
evitable issue.  What  this  would  be  he  could  not  doubt. 
"And  he  began  to  teach  them  that  the  Son  of  Man  must 
suffer  many  things  and  be  rejected."  Peter  was  utterly 
unprepared  for  any  such  words  as  these.  They  did  not  at 
all  fit  into  his  conception  of  what  the  future  must  be.  Nor 
is  this  strange,  for  until  that  day  the  thought  of  the  possible 
suffering  and  death  of  the  Messiah  had  apparently  never 
entered  his  mind.  It  may  seem  strange  that,  regarding 
Jesus  as  he  now  did,  he  so  utterly  failed  to  perceive  the 
teaching  of  the  events  of  the  previous  ministry.  Possibly 
he  had  never  once  imagined  that  these  could  influence  the 
manner  of  the  coming  of  the  kingdom,  or  indicate  what  the 
immediate  future  had  in  store.  He  was  too  near  the  events 
themselves  to  understand  their  significance.  He  could  but 
faintly  realize  the  meaning  of  that  great  fact  which  had 
recently  found  lodgment  in  his  mind.  Long  before  he  had 
recognized  in  Jesus  the  Christ  he  had  possessed  clearly  de- 
fined conceptions  of  the  messianic  future  which  he  longed  to 
share.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  he  expostulated  and 
declared  that  Jesus'  foreboding  was  unthinkable.  It  was  a 
strange,  crushing,  bewildering  conception,  that  God's  chosen 
nation,  after  so  many  centuries  of  waiting,  should  ultimately 
set  at  naught  and  persecute  his  chosen  Messiah.  Jesus'  an- 
swer seems  to  indicate  that  latterly  there  had  been  waged  a 
struggle  in  his  own  mind  closely  associated  with  this  very 
thought.  Peter's  words  but  reiterated  the  arguments  which, 
he  had  come  to  see,  derived  their  force  from  the  philosophy 
of  the  Avorld  of  darkness.  It  was  this  worldly  view  that 
dominated  his  nation  and  blinded  them  to  his   message  of 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    197 

truth  and  love.  How  he  had  struggled  against  such  con- 
ceptions, as  they  had  presented  themselves  in  his  own 
thoughts,  and  as  he  met  them  at  every  turn  in  the  world 
about  him!  Did  he  not  number  a  Zealot  among  his  imme- 
diate followers  who  had  perhaps  not  yet  thought  of  laying 
aside  his  sword  ?  No  wonder  this  clinging  to  outward  glory 
and  worldly  power  was  branded  as  satanic.  Continued  con- 
flict with  such  gross  and  material  conceptions  had  served  to 
show  how  incompatible  they  were  with  the  true  conception 
of  God's  kingdom.  It  is  not  strange  that  Peter's  words 
received  an  answer  weighted  with  feeling.  Of  the  means 
employed  to  unmask  this  persistent  foe  and  show  the  real 
nature  of  its  allurement,  we  know  very  little.  The  context 
which  follows  seems  to  indicate  that  Jesus  spoke  to  them 
again  of  the  supreme  place  of  service  in  a  successful  life, 
and  of  the  slight  importance  of  the  suffering  that  this  might 
involve.  The  sayings  here  recorded  are  in  part  repeated 
elsewhere.^  They  are  possibly  to  be  regarded  as  topically 
grouped  rather  than  originally  thus  connected  in  the  pres- 
ent context,  appropriate  as  they  are  to  the  occasion.  The 
allusion  to  the  "multitude  with  his  disciples  "  (Mark  8  :  34) 
and  to  some  "  of  them  that  stand  by  "  (Mark  9  :  1)  suggest  a 
larger  audience.  We  can  believe,  however,  that  the  evan- 
gelists are  correct  in  finding  in  these  verses  a  theme  of  the 
teaching  of  these  days.  Knowing  so  little  of  the  circum- 
stances and  immediate  surroundings  and  how  their  time  was 
spent  we  can  only  conjecture  what  further  passed  between 
them.  Jesus  may  have  turned  the  attention  of  the  disciples 
to  the  history  of  the  past,  especially  to  that  of  the  centuries 
just  preceding,  and  pointed  out  how  it  taught  that  the  out- 
come which  their  hope  demanded  was  not  compatible  with 
the  plan  of  God.  They  had  then  enjoyed  a  large  measure 
of  the  worldly  power  which  they  coveted,  and  what  had  been 
the  outcome  of  it  all?  A  deeper  degradation,  self -achieved. 
His  rebuke  to  Peter  recalls  the  account  of  his  struggle  in  the 

1  Matt.  10 :  38  (Luke  U :  27) ;  Matt.  10  :  39  ;  Luke  17  :  33  ;  John  12  :  25 ;  Matt. 
10:  32,  33  (Luke  12:  8,  9). 


198  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

desert  and  it  has  been  shown  that  it  was  very  probably  dur- 
ing this  period  that  he  unfolded  that  chapter  of  his  own 
experience  for  their  help  and  instruction. ^  We  can  think  of 
no  other  time  previously  when  they  were  ready  to  receive 
such  confidences,  and  it  was  only  from  Jesus  himself  that 
they  could  gain  a  knowledge  of  these  events.  He  would 
unfold  to  them  how  the  great  truth,  set  forth  in  Peter's 
confession,  had  previously  come  to  him  and  how  he  had 
struggled  with  the  problems  which  this  revelation  intro- 
duced.^  All  this  would  be  helpful  so  far  as  they  could 
understand  its  import,  but  it  did  not  meet  what  was  to 
them  no  doubt  the  most  serious  difficulty  of  all.  Trans- 
mitted from  the  fathers  and  treasured  in  every  heart  were 
the  Old  Testament  promises  which  had  been  woven  into  that 
precious  picture  of  the  future  for  which  they  lived.  These 
promises  were  God's  own  message  to  his  afflicted  people. 
They  all  pointed  to  a  future  filled  with  the  glory  and  suc- 
cesses of  the  Messiah.  With  his  coming  the  night  of  sor- 
row and  affliction  would  have  an  end.  How  then  can  Jesus 
accept  this  confession  of  Peter  and  thereby  proclaim  that 
God's  power  is  about  to  be  manifested  as  foretold  of  old, 
and  then  forthwith  proceed  to  picture  the  future  in  a  way 
entirely  at  variance  with  all  that  had  been  promised?  In 
striving  to  make  clear  to  them  the  true  nature  of  the  abiding 
kingdom,  Jesus  could  not  fail  to  meet  this  supreme  diffi- 
culty. And  so  there  came  a  day  which  stood  out  from  all 
others  in  this  northern  sojourn,  when,  in  the  mountain  soli- 
tude, apart  from  all  that  could  bind  their  hearts  to  earth,  he 
unfolded  to  them  the  mystery  of  God's  word.  He  showed  to 
them  that  along  with  the  promise  of  the  future  realization  of 

1  Prof.  B.  W.  Bacon,  Am.  Jour,  of  Theol  II.  No.  3,  p.  527  £E.  Cf.  0.  Holtz- 
mann,  Leben  Jesn,  S.  257  f. 

2  If  it  be  objected  that  the  later  view  of  Jesus'  divinity  and  the  attitude  of 
worship  preclude  any  such  confidences,  then  one  can  answer  that  there  can  never 
have  been  anything  to  indicate  human  weakness  or  indeed  mere  humanity  in  the 
life  of  Jesus.  How  are  we  then  to  account  for  the  allusions  in  our  gospels  ?  It 
is  furthermore  coming  to  be  held  with  growing  certainty,  .as  a  great  fundamental 
principle,  that  in  being  divine  Jesus  did  not  cease  to  be  human. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    199 

their  noblest  aspirations  there  was  also  shadowed  forth  the 
impending  suffering  of  him  who  should  come  as  the  Messiah. 
Not  only  was  this  suffering  not  inconsistent  with  his  office 
but  absolutely  indispensable  to  its  accomplishment.  Through 
the  words  and  experiences  of  how  many  of  his  servants  had 
God  set  forth  this  truth!  The  grandest  lives  in  all  their 
history  foreshadowed  the  suffering  of  that  one  for  whom  the 
nation  waited.  We  can  think  that  on  this  day  they  first 
began  to  see  the  message  so  plainly  written  in  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  and  that  found  such  a  wonderful  expres- 
sion in  the  life  of  Jeremiah.  Then  they  began  to  realize  that 
it  was  not  so  utterly  inconceivable  that  the  Messiah  might 
appear  and  be  set  at  naught.  It  was  a  most  important 
moment  when  this  conception  first  flashed  upon  their  con- 
sciousness, but  it  could  not  change  at  once  all  those  concep- 
tions that  generations  of  teaching  and  tradition  had  left 
behind.  Their  minds  were  opened,  but  not  transformed. 
It  needed  more  than  one  hour  of  insight  to  accomplish  this. 
It  was  still,  however,  a  day  memorable  above  all  others  in 
this  period  of  their  experience.  They  never  forgot  it,  and 
later  history  made  it  stand  out  in  greater  glory.  They  came 
to  understand  the  comfort  and  companionship  with  the  saints 
of  old  which  the  Master  had  known  in  the  hours  of  seeming 
humiliation,  and  how,  communing  with  them,  he  saw  the 
glorious  end.  But  only  experience  could  make  this  fully 
clear  to  them.  For  the  present  there  was  more  of  perplexity 
and  uncertainty.     Many  things  needed  readjustment. 

One  of  the  most  unquestioned  articles  of  the  national  faith 
had  been  the  teaching  regarding  the  reappearance  of  that 
prophet  who  had  vanished  in  the  heavens,  to  accomplish  the 
work  of  preparation  and  restoration.  How,  then,  can  it  be 
possible  that  the  Messiah,  in  fulfilling  his  very  mission,  is 
to  be  despised  of  men  and  suffer  at  their  hands?  Have 
the  Scribes  been  wrong  in  maintaining  so  confidently  and 
without  contradiction  that  Elijah  must  first  come?  Is  the 
Messiah  to  appear,  after  all,  unheralded  and  receive  such 
an   unsrracious  welcome   from  his  nation?     Not  so!    Jesus 


200  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

answers.  One  has  already  come  who  stands  as  the  noblest  in 
all  the  prophetic  succession.  He  closed  the  epoch  of  the  old. 
If  this  be  true,  do  you  still  ask  —  "  How  is  it  written  of  the 
Son  of  Man  that  he  should  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at 
naught?  "  It  is  so  written  because  the  same  is  written  of  his 
great  herald.  This  one  has  come  and  found  men  unwilling 
to  receive  his  message  and  to  co-operate  in  the  discharge  of 
his  mission.  It  is  their  blindness  and  unreadiness  that  have 
made  his  efforts  vain.  Instead  of  heeding  him,  they  have 
laid  violent  hold  on  him  and  given  full  play  to  their  carnal 
impulses.  This  treatment  of  the  forerunner  was  but  a  con- 
firmation of  what  the  future  was  bound  to  bring  to  him 
whose  advent  was  to  follow.  To  the  disciples  who  asked 
the  question  this  explanation  must  have  brought  a  new  and 
strange  conception.  It  might  help  them  to  better  understand 
the  work  and  fate  of  John  the  Baptist,  but  with  the  help 
there  would  come  further  perplexity.  It  was  only  the  days 
of  sad,  discouraging  experience,  which  were  to  follow,  that 
could  make  plain  the  truth  that  Jesus  unfolded  to  them  dur- 
ing these  days. 

3.    The  Relation  to  Peter^s  Confession 

If  this  sketch  has  correctly  interpreted  the  connection  of 
the  few  events  that  are  known  to  us  from  this  period  of  the 
northern  sojourn,  then  it  is  evident  that  the  transfiguration 
stands  in  vital  relationship  to  the  confession  of  Peter,  and 
that  the  testimony  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  the  truth 
of  Jesus'  forecast  of  the  future  was  of  the  utmost  importance. 
Other  details  of  less  significance  dropped  out  of  remembrance, 
but  this  episode  in  the  instruction  of  the  disciples  was  pre- 
served and  handed  down.  The  record  of  Peter's  confession, 
taken  alone,  is  incomplete.  Looked  at  apart,  by  itself,  it  is 
not  the  significant  experience  it  is  sometimes  made  to  be,  but 
rather  simply  one  important  moment  in  this  experience,  and 
was  so  recalled  in  after  years.  It  imperatively  demands  the 
further  developments  which  the  narratives  in  part  indicate. 


THE   SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    201 

The  account  of  the  transfiguration  is  thus  seen  to  stand  in 
organic  connection  with  what  precedes.^  We  fail  to  under- 
stand Peter's  words,  if  our  reading  and  thinking  stop  with 
these.  They  mark  without  doubt  an  important  epoch,  but 
it  is  made  clear  that,  after  all,  Peter  had  not  risen  so  far 
above  the  many  who  "went  back  and  walked  no  more  with 
him"  (John  6  :  QQ).  His  declaration  evinces  possibly  some 
purification  of  his  messianic  hopes  and  a  spiritualizing  of 
them,  which  had  resulted  from  the  days  of  companionship 
and  patient  teaching  of  his  Master.  A  discouraging  present 
did  not  shake  his  confidence,  but  his  vision  was  by  no  means 
clear.  Far  from  reaching  the  goal,  he  was  only  at  the  point 
of  taking  another  step  and  not  so  ready  to  do  this  as  his 
words  might  seem  at  first  to  indicate.  His  vision  of  the 
glorious  future  was  still  bright  and  had  no  place  in  it  for  the 
darkness  of  Jerusalem  and  Calvary.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Jesus  understood  the  situation  and  sought  by  all  possible 
means  to  lead  those  on  who  had  followed  him  so  far.  He 
knew  that  the  greatest  difficulty  lay  in  the  contradiction  of 
what  he  announced  to  them  to  all  that  they  found  in  the 
witness  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  No  one  realized  this 
better  than  he  after  these  months  of  teaching.  Before  all 
else  the  disciples  must  come  to  find  this  strange  message  in 
these  writings,  even  as  he  had  found  it  there.  We  must,  I 
think,  attach  more  importance  than  has  been  done  in  the 
past,  to  the  part  that  the  Old  Testament  had  in  developing 
Jesus'  own  ideas  regarding  his  suffering.  He  was  made 
increasingly  conscious  at  every  turn  that  the  whole  course 
of  his  ministry  and  the  outcome  which  he  was  now  compelled 
to  face  contradicted  the  current  expectations  which  were 
apparently  just  deductions  from  the  Old  Testament  promises. 
There  must  be  a  reconciliation  for  any  devout  Jew,  and  it 
does  not  seem  too  much  from  such  a  point  of  view,  if  from 
no  other,  to  assume  that  Jesus  had  felt  this  need.     We  can- 

1  This  is  often  disputed ;  e.  g.,  Wendt,  Lehre  Jesu,  I.  S.  27  "  aber  in  eine  eigent- 
lich  organische  Beziehung  zu  dem  Inhalte  dieses  Abschnittes  siud  sie  (i.  e.,  9  :  2-29 
and  10  :  1-12)  nicht  gebracht." 


202  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

not  think  that  in  this  respect  his  experience  was  so  unlike 
that  of  his  disciples.  As  reality  took  shape  in  his  daily  life 
he  was  led  to  look  deeper,  and  it  can  have  been  no  trivial  or 
unimportant  matter  to  discover  the  witness  which  was  given 
by  these  scriptures,  where  the  work  of  redemption  that  had 
been  wrought  in  the  past  and  the  promise  of  that  for  the 
future  stood  recorded.  Just  when  and  how  Jesus  came  to 
perceive  their  deepest  lesson  we  do  not  know.  He  always 
seemed  to  read  the  scriptures  in  a  way  very  different  from 
that  of  his  contemporaries.  On  repeated  occasions  he  urged 
them  to  turn  and  read  again,  while  with  unanswerable  logic 
he  set  forth  some  all-important  teaching  which  their  Scribes 
had  thus  far  overlooked.  If  we  cannot,  from  the  data  left  to 
us,  fix  on  the  period  when  he  himself  came  to  this  under- 
standing of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  we  can  with  reason- 
able certainty  determine  that  in  which  he  first  unfolded  to 
the  disciples  the  witness  which  he  found  therein.  For  there 
must  have  been  a  day  when  first  they  became  aware  that  a 
suffering  Messiah  was  not  a  strange  conception,  but  one 
long  ago  foretold,  and  where  in  all  the  gospel  history  can  a 
time  be  pointed  out  more  natural  for  this  than  the  one  at 
which  we  have  arrived?  The  idea  of  the  impending  rejec- 
tion and  being  set  at  naught  is  expressly  stated  as  coming 
now  as  something  new  and  inconceivable.  In  showing  that 
such  was  not  the  case,  but  must  needs  be,  how  could  the 
proof,  for  them,  of  all  others  be  neglected?  That  it  was 
not,  seems  to  be  unquestionably  indicated  in  the  brief  narra- 
tives which  we  possess.  In  the  conversation  which  took 
place  while  they  descended  the  mountain  there  are  unmis- 
takable references  to  Old  Testament  prophecy.  Jesus,  in 
meeting  the  difficulty  which  came  from  the  understanding 
of  the  words  of  Malachi,  alludes  to  some  previous  knowledge 
on  their  part  of  the  prophetic  announcement  of  the  suffering 
that  was  to  come  to  the  Messiah  —  "  How  is  it  written  with 
reference  to  the  Son  of  Man  that  he  should  suffer  many 
things  and  be  set  at  naught?  "  This  implies  they  had  already 
heard  tliat  it  was  so  written,  but  at  the  time  of  Peter's  con- 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    203 

fession  this  was  to  them  an  unheard-of  conception.  It  can 
then  only  have  been  revealed,  so  far  as  our  narratives  show, 
when  they  saw  Moses  and  Elijah  talking  with  Jesus.  It 
would  further  be  only  after  the  discussion  of  such  proxDhecies 
regarding  the  Messiah  himself  that  those  relating  to  a  like 
treatment  of  his  forerunner  would  be  naturally  introduced. 
The  'yeypainaL  and  Kadm  'yiypairrai  (Mark  9  :  12,  13)  show 
that  it  is  the  witness  of  prophecy  that  is  the  theme  of  the 
hour.  Luke  previously  (9  :  31),  in  the  material  peculiar  to 
him,  indicates  that  he  thinks  this  to  be  the  case,  by  the  use 
of  TrXrjpovv.  This  terminus  technicus  implies  that  it  is  in 
accordance  with  what  had  been  foretold  that  Jesus  was  about 
to  fulfil  his  exodus.  The  i^ovSevndf}  (Mark  9  :  12)  suggests 
to  us  in  view  of  the  later  interpretation  that  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah  had  been  under  consideration. 

4.    The  Importance  of  the  Witness  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
Early  Christians 

It  might  seem  to  be  an  unwarranted  assumption,  which 
was  the  product  of  mere  speculation,  to  insist  thus  on  the 
central  importance  of  the  witness  of  the  Old  Testament,  if 
there  were  no  further  evidence  to  sustain  the  contention. 
When,  however,  we  recall  the  many  New  Testament  pas- 
sages which  take  up  this  very  question,  we  feel  there  is 
little  danger  of  exaggeration.  How  often  throughout  the 
Gospels,  in  John  as  well  as  elsewhere,  in  the  Acts  and  in 
the  Epistles,  is  the  witness  of  the  Old  Testament  adduced 
as  the  unanswerable  proof  for  the  necessity  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ing !  What  an  element  this  same  witness  is  in  the  preaching 
of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles !  And  it  should  be  noted  that 
he  does  not  introduce  it  as  something  new  and  now  for  the 
first  time  proclaimed,  but  says  —  "  For  I  delivered  unto  you 
first  of  all  that  which  also  I  received^  how  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures  "  (1  Cor.  15  :  3 ;  cf .  Acts 
26  :  22  ;  1  Pet.  1  :  11,  etc.). 

Nor  was  it  alone  for  these  earlier  followers  that  such  wit- 


204  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ness  was  all  important,  but  in  the  writings  which  follow  the 
apostolic  age  we  find  it  again  greatly  expanded  and  empha- 
sized. Turn  for  example  to  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and 
read  such  sections  as  6  and  11,  or  glance  through  Justin 
Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Trypho.  As  we  review  these  writ- 
ings to-day  and  go  over  the  familiar  records  of  the  gospels, 
especially  Matthew,  so  knit  together  with  prophecies  and 
interpretations  pointing  to  the  suffering  and  death  of  Jesus, 
it  is  hard  to  realize  there  was  a  time  when  this  was  all  new. 
It  is,  however,  becoming  each  year  more  certain  that  there 
was  such  a  time,  and  that  it  belongs  to  the  period  of  Jesus' 
ministry.  If  our  deductions  are  correct,  we  can  go  further 
and  say  this  teaching  was  first  set  forth  on  the  Mountain  of 
Transfiguration. 

5.    The  Jewish  Conception  of  a  Suffering  Messiah  Post- 
Christian 

Those  whose  study  of  Jewish  messianic  prophecy  properly 
entitles  them  to  speak  with  authority,  agree  to-day,  almost 
without  exception,  that  all  ideas  of  a  dying  or  of  a  suffering 
Messiah  are  post-Christian.  The  opposing  view  of  Wiinsche  * 
and  earlier  writers  has  now  few  advocates.  It  is  not  un- 
til the  second  century  after  Christ  that  we  find  in  Jewish 
writings  any  express  reference  to  the  idea  that  the  Messiah 
is  to  be  killed  or  pass  through  suffering.  The  fifty-third  of 
Isaiah  was  not  in  earlier  times  understood  to  refer  to  him, 
nor  did  it  ever  come  to  be  universally  so  interpreted.  In  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan  we  meet  the  striking  anomaly  of  treat- 
ing this  passage  messianically  and  at  the  same  time  dissociat- 
ing all  the  sorrow  and  suffering  from  the  Messiah  himself. 
The  presence  of  a  Messiah  Ben  Joseph  or  Ben  Ephraim 
whose  special  office  it  was  to  suffer  and  die  seems  to  fur- 

1  Die  Leiden  des  Messias,  Leipzig,  1870,  per  contra  v.  Dalman,  Der  leidende 
M.  der  stcrhende  Messias,  u.  s.  w.,  Berlin,  1888  and  Jesaja  53,  u.  s.  w.,  Leipzig,  1890; 
Baldenaperger,  Das  Selbstbewnsstsein  Jesti,  2  Auf.,  S.  144  ff :  cf.  further  Schiirer, 
Geschichte  des  judischen  Volkes,  u.  s.  w.,  3.  Auf.,  II.  S.  553. 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE   TRANSFIGURATION    205 

nish  an  indication  how  impossible  it  was  felt  to  be  to  connect 
such  a  fate  with  the  mission  of  the  real  Messiah  Ben  David. 
Just  what  led  to  the  development  of  the  Jewish  tradition 
of  the  dying  Messiah  is  not  clear.  Dalman  considers  it 
conceivable  that  Christian  polemic  may  have  induced  a 
deepened  apprehension  of  messianic  prophecy  on  the  part 
of  the  Jews  and  led  to  the  postulating  of  a  dying  Messiah 
(Ben  Joseph)  to  take  away  the  force  of  the  Christian  inter- 
pretation of  Zechariah  12  :  10. ^  Proof  cannot  be  adduced 
to  show  this,  nor  can  we  discover  from  existing  sources 
whether  this  whole  doctrine  of  the  dying  and  suffering 
Messiah  is  fundamentally  of  Jewish  origin  and  independent 
of  Christian  influence,  or  whether  it  sprang  originally  from 
an  attempt  at  adjustment  to  Christian  polemic.  If  this 
last  were  true,  we  could  hardly  hope  to  find  certain  indica- 
tions of  it  in  the  Jewish  writers.  It  is  of  course  true 
that  the  post  hoc  has  not  the  force  here  of  the  propter 
hoc,  but  none  the  less  it  would  be  possible  to  advance 
several  considerations  that  favor,  a  priori,  a  partial  identifi- 
cation. The  whole  subject  is  treated  far  too  sparingly  in  the 
sources  to  admit  of  any  very  satisfactory  deductions.  There 
is  no  uniformly  attested  tradition  that  can  be  said  to  be  tjie 
property  of  Judaism  as  a  whole. ^  In  the  case  of  the  idea  of 
the  dying  Messiah  which  appears  earlier  and  is  always  kept 
distinct  from  the  tradition  of  the  Messiah  Ben  David,  there 
seems  to  be  especial  justification  in  assuming  the  presence  of 
Christian  influence.  If,  however,  it  could  be  shown  that 
such  an  idea  was  present  much  earlier  in  the  minds  of  some, 
it  would  still  remain  a  fact,  clearly  evidenced  by  the  New 
Testament  writings,  that  it  was  utterly  strange  to  the  dis- 
ciples; that  apparently,  following  Mark,  who  is  our  only 
guide  in  obtaining  an  historical  order,  it  was  first  revealed 
to  them  here  on  the  mountain  side.  They  could  not  at  once 
grasp  its  meaning,  but  the  change  began  which  was  in  due 
time  so  complete  that  this  rock  of  offence  became  the  corner- 

1  Der  leidende  u.  sterbende  Messias,  S.  21  f. 

2  Dalman,  loc.  cit.,  S.  86  £f. 


206  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

stone  of  the  Christian  church.  And  so  firmly  was  it  laid  that 
the  Jews,  or  at  least  a  considerable  number  of  them,  although 
not  convinced,  confessed  by  their  changed  interpretations  the 
error  of  their  long  cherished  exegesis  and  their  failure  to 
read  aright  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  And  thus,  inde- 
pendently of  what  it  meant  to  Jesus  and  the  disciples,  that 
hour  in  the  northern  sojourn  may  possibly  be  further  signifi- 
cant in  marking  what  fell  little  short  of  being  a  revolution  in 
a  nation's  thought. 

6.    The  Details  of  the  Gospel  Narratives 

We  have  given  our  whole  attention  thus  far  to  what  seems 
to  be  the  central  theme  of  the  transfiguration  and  have  striven 
to  set  forth  its  importance.  What  now  of  the  details?  It 
does  not  seem  reasonable,  in  view  of  our  present  knowledge, 
to  hope  for  an  adequate  explanation  of  many  of  them.  We 
cannot  consistently  employ  a  method  here  which  we  have 
agreed  to  abandon  in  the  case  of  the  narratives  of  the  bap- 
tism and  the  temptation.  These  accounts  especially,  and 
also  such  passages  as  Luke  10  :  18,  where  Jesus  cries  out 
in  his  exultation,  "  I  beheld  Satan  falling  as  lightning  from 
heaven,"  together  with  the  many  other  descriptions  of  like 
nature  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  Jewish-Palestinian 
literature,  prepare  us  to  find  experiences  of  real  life  set  forth 
in  oriental  imagery.  And  we  cannot  all  agree,  with  Strauss, 
that  one  is  bound  to  choose  between  the  grossest  literalism 
and  the  mythical  point  of  view.  Rather,  the  more  one 
studies  these  early  writings,  the  more  evident  it  becomes 
that  such  an  experience  as  we  find  set  fortli  in  our  passage, 
must  be  clothed  in  some  such  literary  form.  The  writers 
never  analyze  their  experiences  in  a  philosophical  manner, 
but  set  them  forth  descriptively.  And  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  this  was  done  in  oral  communications  dealing  with 
kindred  themes.  In  the  present  instance  it  has  been  so  deftly 
done  that  we  can  but  admire  tlie  insight  which  is  revealed. 
How  far  the  setting  may  be  due  to  the  actual  experience  and 


THE   SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE    TRANSFIGURATION    207 

to  the  circumstances  of  the  occasion  we  have  no  means  of 
judging,  and  shall  probably  do  best  to  refrain  from  the  tempt- 
ing speculation  which  is  invited.  Another  thing  that  expe- 
rience has  taught  us  is,  that  one  often  goes  far  astray,  if 
he  seeks  his  key  to  the  understanding  of  a  representation  in 
the  literary  connections  of  descriptive  details.  More  is  de- 
manded of  an  interpreter  than  to  merely  point  out  the  use  of 
Old  Testament  or  apocalyptic  words  and  imagery.  We  are 
guarded  in  a  measure  from  such  an  error  in  the  case  of  the 
transfiguration  by  the  possession  of  a  threefold  narrative. 
We  can  trace  the  modification  of  details,  to  some  extent, 
that  came  with  a  changed  emphasis  of  interpretation.  It  is 
probable  that  such  an  influence  had  been  at  work  before  we 
can  trace  its  presence.  At  the  time  when  the  gospels  were 
written  the  importance  of  what  we  have  considered  the  cen- 
tral teaching  of  the  transfiguration  was  not  so  unique  as  it 
had  been  at  first.  A  partial  adjustment  of  Jewish  opposi- 
tion would  follow,  when  the  principle  was  once  recognized. 
There  were  now  objections  to  the  resurrection  and  the 
parousia  which  must  be  also  met.  It  is  possible  the  author 
of  the  second  gospel  found  in  the  transfiguration  an  attesta- 
tion of  the  promise  of  Jesus'  coming  which  is  recorded  in  the 
verse  immediately  preceding  his  narrative  of  this  event,  and 
that  this  influenced  the  description  which  he  gives  of  Jesus' 
appearance  in  glory.  We  have  left  to  us  in  the  gospel  his- 
tory only  this  one  picture  of  a  glorification  of  Jesus,  and 
consequently  it  was  but  natural  that  later  teachers  should 
make  use  of  it  in  discussing  the  resurrection  and  second 
coming.  We  know  of  at  least  one  instance  where  this  was 
very  early  done,  that  is  in  the  section  of  Second  Peter,  which 
we  have  previously  considered.  The  writer  expressly  an- 
nounces it  as  his  aim  to  show  the  certainty  of  Christ's  future 
coming.  He  has  in  mind  those  doubters  who  ask  incredu- 
lously, "  Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming  ? "  (3  :  3) 
In  his  answer  he  cites  the  transfiguration,  as  offering  a  guar- 
antee for  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise.  In  doing  this  he 
recapitulates  those  features  which  are  important  for  his  pur- 


208  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

pose,  and  omits  the  others  as  irrelevant.  This  explains  why- 
he  makes  no  mention  of  Moses  and  Elijah.  It  is  the  pro- 
cedure of  the  advocate,  rather  than  that  of  the  historian,  and 
as  such  is  perfectly  comprehensible. 


7.  Possible  Objections   Considered 

As  an  objection  to  the  view  we  have  presented  it  may  be 
said  that  it  is  improbable  that  Elijah  would  be  thought  of 
in  two  such  different  offices  in  the  same  immediate  context. 
These  offices  are,  however,  both  natural  to  him  and,  as  they 
are  introduced,  their  association  does  not  seem  strange.  It 
must  also  be  borne  in  mind  how  difficult  it  has  been  found, 
almost  without  exception,  to  find  a  possible  bond  of  connec- 
tion between  the  disciples'  question  and  the  preceding  ap- 
pearance on  any  other  basis  of  interpretation.  Usually  the 
question  is  regarded  as  historical,  to  the  prejudice  of  what 
precedes.  How,  it  is  said,  could  the  disciples  ask  about 
Elijah's  coming,  if  they  had  just  seen  him?  Or  the  irpSiTov 
is  made  to  express  their  wonder  that  he  has  come  so  late, 
after  the  Messiah  has  already  appeared.  But  surely  the  dis- 
ciples can  be  credited  with  enough  sound  understanding  to 
distinguish  between  the  momentary  appearance  of  a  shadowy 
form  and  the  continued  historical  presence  of  the  Restorer  of 
all  things  which  the  prophecy  of  Malachi  was  understood  to 
demand.  A  mere  vision  or  phantom  could  be  associated 
with  little  preparatory  work. 

Sometimes  it  is  said  that  the  account  was  composed  to 
prove  to  Jewish  objectors  that  Elijah  had  come  as  predicted. 
If  this  be  so,  it  was  certainly  a  very  poor  success,  for  there 
is  no  indication  that  the  disciples,  their  opponents,  or  any 
one  else,  except  the  expositors,  thought  of  this  event  as  the 
expected  coming  of  Elijah.  Rather  in  the  New  Testament 
and  early  Church  Fathers  we  have  seen  the  opinion  is  that 
the   prophecy  was   fulfilled    in   John   the   Baptist,  ^  or  was 

1  Beside  references  given  above,  cf.  Luke  1:17. 


THE   SIGNIFICANCE   OF  THE    TRANSFIGURATION   209 

still  to  be  fulfilled  before  the  parousia,  or  both  (cf.  Matt. 
17  :  10,  11). 

If  again  we  should  look  on  Moses  and  Elijah  as  standing 
for  the  two  witnesses  of  the  Apocalypse,  it  is  just  as  difficult 
to  find  any  reason  for  their  introduction.  What  would  their 
appearing  mean  to  the  writer  or  to  the  readers?  How  could 
it  be  related  to  the  following  question?  In  the  view  we 
have  suggested,  the  inquiry  springs  from  their  perplexity  as 
to  how  it  can  be  written,  regarding  the  Son  of  Man,  that  he 
must  suffer  many  things  and  be  set  at  naught,  when  there  is 
also  the  promise  of  the  Restorer.  The  irpwrov  thereby  gets 
its  due  recognition,  and  the  words  thus  interpreted  are  not 
difficult,  but  the  natural  outcome  of  the  consideration  of  the 
preceding  topic. 

8.   Conclusion  ' 

Looking  at  the  transfiguration  as  we  have  interpreted  it, 
we  find  it  has  its  place  in  the  course  of  real  history,  and  that 
the  history  of  a  most  important  period.  We  are  here  in  the 
domain  of  fact  and  not  in  that  of  the  imagination.  And  if 
this  be  so,  we  can  ill  afford  to  lose  this  account  from  our 
records,  or  relegate  it  to  the  realm  of  post-Christian  myth. 
It  has  been  seen  that  it  does  not  at  all  correspond  to  the  kind 
of  product  that  any  such  hypothesis  demands.  Some  such 
experience  as  we  have  found  narrated  here  is  not  only  pos- 
sible, but  is  demanded  by  the  change  that  takes  place  in  the 
conceptions  of  the  disciples.  The  earliest  apologists  of  the 
Christian  faith  appearing  in  the  New  Testament  history  are 
ready  to  meet  their  opponents  with  arguments  that  shortly 
before  were  incomprehensible  to  the  defenders  themselves. 
The  transfiguration  is  thus  found  to  be  primarily  significant 
in  marking  the  time  and  the  experience  when  this  new  con- 
ception first  gained  lodgment  in  their  minds.  The  meaning 
was  gradually  apprehended,  until  these  early  disciples  were 
able  to  stand  forth  and  show  the  scriptural  warrant  for  their 
faith  in  their  risen  Lord.  Viewed  from  another  side  it  would 
be  possible  to  develop  more  at  length,  along  lines  suggested 

14 


210  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

in  sketching  the  history  of  the  period,  how  the  transfigura- 
tion is  incidentally  of  great  importance  in  helping  to  an 
understanding  of  the  consciousness  of  Jesus.  As  an  experi- 
ence in  this  period  of  struggle  and  temptation,  it  shows  us 
one  of  the  sources  from  which  help  and  comfort  came  to  him. 
It  was  not  the  prospect  of  the  suffering  and  death  that  would 
be  terrible  and  occasion  the  evident  anguish,  but  to  stand 
thus,  contradicting  all  the  national  belief  in  God  and  his 
relationship  to  his  chosen  people,  to  stand  at  seeming  vari- 
ance with  the  most  treasured  messianic  promises  and  yet  be 
conscious  of  the  holy  office  entrusted  to  him,  this  was  a 
temptation  hard  to  meet,  when  a  knowledge  of  men's  need 
and  of  the  hardness  of  their  hearts  but  intensified  that  yearn- 
ing love  that  felt  no  sacrifice  too  great  to  bring  them  succor. 
In  these  mighty  temptations  of  love  Jesus  found  help  in  the 
message  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  where  his  deep  in- 
sight showed  him  the  truth  that  not  as  a  king  welcomed  and 
honored,  but  only  as  a  despised  and  suffering  prophet,  could 
he  bring  this  succor  to  his  people. 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH: 

ITS    ARGUMENT    AND    DOCTRINAL 
RELATIONSHIP 

BENJAMIN  WISNER  ^BACON,  LITT.D.,   D.D. 

Buckingham  Professor  of  New  Testament  Criticism  and 
Interpretation 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH: 
ITS  AEGUMENT  AND  DOCTRINAL  RELATIONSHIP 


RELATION  OF   THE  SPEECH  TO  ITS  NARRATIVE 

SETTING 

Every  careful  reader  is  impressed  with  the  fact  that 
Stephen's  speech  (Acts  7  ;  1-56)  is  but  imperfectly  adapted 
to  the  situation  the  author  of  Acts  makes  it  fill.^  We  expect 
the  accused  to  make  more  than  a  latent  and  indirect  reply  to 
the  two  items  of  the  indictment  against  him.  We  do  not 
expect  him  to  indulge  in  a  general  review  of  the  history  of 
Israel :  The  story  begins  as  a  formal  trial  before  the  stately 
Sanhedrin.  It  ends  with  a  scene  of  mob  violence.  Later  on, 
in  22  :  20,  and  26  :  10,  words  placed  in  the  mouth  of  Paul 
(^iyjnjcpiaa)  suggest  something  more  like  orderly  procedure, 
and  in  a  single  clause  at  the  end  of  the  story  (7  :  58*'),  the 
witnesses  of  6  :  13  momentarily  reappear.  But  this  clause 
itself  is  introduced  in  the  language  of  22  :  20  and  in  a  man- 
ner so  awkward  as  to  suggest  interpolation  even  to  Blass.^ 
Were  we  to  omit  here  a  clause  or  two  (v.  58,  8  :  1"%  3), 
which,  as  Blass's  comment  suggests,  serve  to  connect  Paul 

^  Cf.  Meyer's  Commentary,  and  Spitta,  Jf^a,  p.  105,  citing  Calvin:  "Stephani 
responsio  prima  specie  absurda  et  inepta  videri  posset,"  and  adding  similar  ob- 
seryations  from  Baur,  Nitzsch,  De  Wette  and  Overbeck. 

2  Ceterum  haec  koI  ol  —  ^av\ov  satis  apparet  ab  auctore  ipso,  Pauli  comite, 
narratione  inserta  esse ;  post  quae,  ex  more  scriptorum,  repetitio  fit  priorum  :  59 
Kal  i\i0o06\ovv.  Commentarium,  ad  loo.  See  also  my  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,  pp.  211  ff. 


214  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

with  the  story,  and  which  seem  to  be  connected  with  22  :  4  f., 
20,  the  impression  produced  would  be  quite  contrary  to  the 
historical  setting  created  by  6  :  11  to  7  :  1.  We  should  con- 
ceive no  longer  the  Beth  Din,  with  its  necessary  respect  for 
at  least  the  forms  of  orderly  procedure  (cf .  4  :  5-21 ;  5  :  26- 
40),  but  "the  synagogue  of  the  Alexandrians  "  or  some  pop- 
ular assembly  provoked  to  violence  by  Stephen's  harangue.^ 
Such  a  scene,  in  fact,  as  we  derive  from  Hegesippus  (ap. 
Euseb.,  R.  E.,  II.  23)  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Hypot. 
VI.  ap.  Eus.,  H.  E.,  II.  1)  for  the  death  of  James,  the  Lord's 
brother.  2  In  fact,  Hegesippus  in  this  account  employs  many 
traits  clearly  connected  with  the  Lucan  writings,  though  he 
does  not  of  course  derive  them  thence.  Of  these  are  the 
public  harangue  "to  Jews  and  Greeks"  at  the  challenge  of 
"the  Jews  and  scribes  and  pharisees"  made  from  the  "pin- 
nacle of  the  temple ;  "  ^  the  exclamation  "  Why  do  ye  ask  me 
concerning  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Man?  He  himself  sitteth  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  great  Power,  and  is  about  to  come 
upon  the  clouds  of  heaven;"  the  stoning,  and  the  prayer  of 
the  martyr,  who  "  turned  and  knelt  down  and  said,  I  entreat 
thee,  Lord  God  our  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do."^ 

1  For  the  documentary  analysis  of  Acts  6  to  8  see  especially  the  article  by  Hil- 
genfeld,  Z.  W.  Th.,  1895,  p.  411,  and  the  authorities  there  referred  to.  Hilgen- 
feld  attributes  vv.  55,  56,  along  with  58\  59  ;  8 :  I  (first  and  last  clauses)  and  3, 
to  R,  on  the  ground  that  7  :  57  connects  directly  with  v.  54  as  its  motive.  With 
55,  56,  59,  60  we  may  compare  Luke  22 :  69,  23  :  46,  34'  (j8  text).  For  Spitta's 
view,  and  the  synagogue  of  the  Alexandrians  as  the  real  scene,  see  below. 

'•2  It  is  curious  to  observe  how  the  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  James  in 
Josephus  {Ant.  XX.  9,  1)  presents  the  same  contrast  of  judicial  procedure  vs.  mob 
violence,  as  the  two  elements  of  Acts  6-7. 

*  Ti  vTtpvyiov  rod  vaov  (v.  1.  Upov).  Perhaps  an  assimilation  to  Luke  4:9  = 
Matt.  4  :  6  from  AvafiaQnoii.     See  the  note  below. 

*  The  later  texts  in  inserting  this  prayer  in  Luke  24  :  24»  are  probably  undoing 
the  work  of  the  Autor  ad  Theophilnm,  who  will  have  struck  it  out  from  the  source 
he  followed  because  of  the  duplication  in  Acts  7  :  60.  Scribes  acquainted  with  the 
precanonical  form  of  the  story  replaced  it,  as  in  the  Ferrariani  they  have  re- 
placed the  Pericope  Adulterae  (rightly  di.scerned  by  Blass  to  be  "Lucan,"  «.  e., 
akin  to  the  material  of  our  Luke,  cf.,  e.  g.,  Luke  7  :  36-50)  after  Luke  21  :  38,  but 
without  cancelling  verses  37,  38,  which  were  apparently  written  by  the  Autor  ad 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  215 

This  account,  while  undeniably  related  to  the  Lucan  nar- 
rative, is  obviously  not  derived  from  it.  On  the  contrary,  it 
has  a  connection  tolerably  clear,  though  indirect,  with  that 
of  Clem.  Mecogn.,  I.  64-70,  where,  after  the  apostles  have 
taught  that  the  sacrificial  system  is  done  away,  and  the 
temple  to  be  destroyed,  James,  on  the  proposal  of  Gamaliel, 
becomes  their  spokesman  before  the  whole  people  on  the 
temple  stairs  and  "brings  to  light  whatever  things  are  in 
Scripture  concerning  Christ,  showing  by  most  abundant 
proofs  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  and  that  in  him  are  fulfilled 
all  the  prophecies  which  related  to  his  humble  (i.  e.,  first) 
advent."  A  later  hand  appends  an  account  of  how  the  mul- 
titude, incited  by  one  whom  the  narrative  later  reveals  to  be 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  raises  a  tumult,  in  the  midst  of  which  "  that 
enemy  "  attacked  James,  threw  him  headlong  from  the  top  of 
the  steps,  and  left  him  for  dead.^ 

Whatever  the  source  of  the  account  of  a  formal  trial  of 
Stephen  (Acts  6  :  11-7  :  1,  55,  56,  58''-8  :  1,  first  clause), 
its  introduction  here  cannot  be  independent  of  that  of  the 
trial  of  Jesus  (Luke  22  :  66-71);  for  the  author  of  Luke- 
Acts,  in  transferring  to  the  pages  of  his  own  gospel  Mark's 
narrative  of  this  event,  is  careful  to  omit  all  reference  to  the 
"false  witnesses, "  the  charge  of  "blasphemy,"  even  the  saying 
about  "destroying  the  temple  and  building  it  in  three  days." 
These  we  find  introduced  in  Acts,  together  with  parallels  to 
Luke  22  :  69 ;  23  :  34*  (/3  text),  46,  in  almost  the  very  lan- 

Theophilum  as  a  substitute;  cf.  John  7  :  53-8  :  2,  and  see  my  Introduction,  p.  220. 
note  10.  Zeller,  Acts,  vol.  ii.  p.  176,  considers  these  "  coincidences  [of  Acts  7  :  60, 
etc.,  with  Hegesippus  ap.  Ens.,  H.  E.,  II.  23  :  7]  scarcely  likely  to  be  accidental." 
^  This  portion  of  the  Clem.  Recogn.  is  probably  based  upon  the  'Kva^aQixoi 
'luKdofiov  (Lightfoot,  Gal.  10,  III.  pp.  330,  359)  mentioned  by  Epiphanius  (XXX, 
16)  as  in  circulation  among  the  Ebionites.  According  to  Hilgenfeld  these  chap- 
ters (I.  27-72)  of  Clem.  Recogn.  were  taken  from  the  Kerygma  Petri  (see  Clem. 
Recogn.,  III.  75).  Both  may  be  true,  the  Kerygma  being  inclusive  of  the  Anahath- 
vioi.  For  the  (Seven)  steps  in  the  temple  {dvaPad/xol),  from  the  top  of  which  James 
addresses  the  people  and  down  which  he  is  thrown,  see  Acts  12 :  10  (;8  text)  and 
22  :  35.  Whether  this  and  the  iTTtpvyiov  rod  vaov  (v.  1.  Upov)  refer  to  the  same 
spot  in  the  temple  we  do  not  know.  On  the  irTtpvyiou  see  Zahn,  Forschungen, 
Teil  VI.  p.  233. 


216  BIBLICAL   AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

guage  of  Mark.  To  regard  this  as  accidental  is  inadmissible. 
The  omissions  of  Luke  22  :  66-71  may  be  regarded  as  due  to 
conflict  of  another  source  with  Mark,  or  it  may  be  supposed, 
though  less  probably,  that  R  of  his  own  motion  preferred  to 
attach  these  traits  to  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen.  Their 
omission  in  the  gospel  must  be  connected  with  their  appear- 
ance here.^  Their  appearance  in  the  post-canonical  sources 
in  connection  with  the  martyrdom  of  James  favors  the  view 
that  R  found  them  in  a  second  narrative,  perhaps  even  twice 
employed,  once  in  connection  with  the  passion  of  Jesus,^  and 
a  second  time  in  the  martyrdom  of  Stephen  or  some  other 
apostolic  "witness." 

Again  in  6  :  1-3  the  Autor  ad  Theophilum  ^  is  distinguish- 
able from  the  source  he  employs  by  the  fact  that  he  treats  (in 
the  ^  text  designates)  the  seven  appointees  of  the  church  as 
mere  SiaKovot,  whereas  the  story  of  their  career  itself  reveals 
the  fact  that  in  it  they  were  really  evangelists,  this  title  being 
expressly  applied  to  Philip  in  21  :  8,  and  by  implication  to 
the  rest  of  "the  seven."  Their  Greek  names,  so  constant  an 
occasion  for  comment  by  interpreters,  and  the  particular  local 
association  of  Nicholas  with  Antioch,  the  first  great  Gentile 
Christian  church  (NiKoXaov  •wpoarjXvrov  ^Avrio^ka,  cf.  11  : 
19-21),  with  the  clear  connection  between  8  :  4  and  11  :  19, 
indicate  that  the  source  attributed  the  earliest  evangelization 
of  the  Greek  communities  in  Africa  (?cf.  8  :  27),  southern 
and  northern  Syria  to  these  Hellenists  and  those  who  with 

1  It  is  characteristic  of  the  Lucan  method  not  (intentionally)  to  repeat,  but  to 
omit  in  one  place  what  is  reserved  for  another;  cf.  Luke,  1:17  with  Mark,  9  :  12 
f.  and  parallels;  Luke  4  :  16  £f.  with  Mark  6  :  16  and  11:11;  Luke  5  : 3  with 
Mark  4  : 1  and  11  : 1 1  Luke  7  :  36-50  with  Mark  14  :  3-9  and  11:11;  Acts  1  :  7 
with  Mark  13  :  32,  etc. 

2  This  would  account  for  the  introduction  of  the  prayer  in  Luke  23  :  34*  by 
later  "  Western  "  scribes. 

8  We  thus  designate  the  final  compiler  of  the  two  Lucan  "treatises"  not  as 
necessarily  accepting  the  view  of  Ililgenfeld,  autlior  of  tiie  designation,  but  to 
avoid  the  commonly  assumed  identity  of  Luke,  author  of  one  of  tlie  sources  of 
Acts  with  the  Redactor  (R)  who  is  probably  the  author  of  the  dedication  to 
Theophilus.  As  to  the  relation  of  the  Lucan  R  to  bis  sources,  see  my  Introduc- 
tion, pp.  218  ff. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  217 

them  "  were  scattered  abroad  by  the  persecution  which  arose 
about  Stephen."  In  fact  the  story  of  Stephen  and  Philip 
shows  a  constant  tendency  to  run  away  from  the  Autor  ad 
Theophilum,  treading  upon  the  heels  of  his  subsequent 
narrative,  which  more  decorously  allows  the  apostles  to 
supervise,  if  not  originate,  the  extension  of  the  gospel  to 
Samaritans  and  heathen  (cf.  1  :  8).  We  have  thus  a  con- 
stant prolepsis  in  his  account  of  the  process,  followed  each 
time  by  qualifying  redactional  supplements:  1.  Evangeliza- 
tion of  the  Samaritans,  8  :  5-8  (cf.  the  Petrine  version  in 

8  :  14  £e.);  2.  First  Gentile  convert,  8  :  26-39  (Petrine  ver- 
sion,  10  :  1-11  :  18;  Petro-Pauline  in  13  :  1  ff.);  3.  Found- 
ing of  the  earliest  Gentile  churches  of  southern  Syria  (the 
Philistine    cities   and    Caesarea),    8   :   40   (Petrine   version, 

9  :  32-11  :  2  [/3  text]);  4.  Northern  Syria  (Antioch), 
11  :  19-21  (Petrine  version  represented  by  the  correction, 
in  V.  20,  of  "EXk7jva<;  to  'EWrjuiara^^^  and  by  vv.  22  ff. ; 
cf.  8  :  14  ff.).  R  reduces  these  "evangelists"  to  the  rank 
of  mere  administrative  officers  of  the  apostolic  church,  He- 
brew and  Hellenist,  2  reserving  to  the  apostles,  in  his  division 
of  labor,  the  functions  of  "prayer  and  the  ministry  of 
the  word."  In  R's  introductory  description,  accordingly, 
the  apostles  are  to  turn  over  the  "service  of  tables"  to  the 
Seven.  In  the  actual  story  the  Seven,  in  spite  of  R's 
limiting  additions,  "  turn  the  tables  "  on  the  apostles.  They 
"give  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  word,"  in  particular 
play  the  part  of  dTrocrroXoi  ^  or  missionaries ;  while  the  apostles 
remain  in  charge  at  Jerusalem  (8:1,  last  clause),  and  the 

^  The  true  reading :  though  the  original  (i.  e.,  the  source  employed)  so  mani- 
festly requires  "EWrjvas  that  this  emendation  of  some  later  texts  has  even  been 
adopted  by  critical  modern  editions. 

2  The  i8  text  again  shows  consciousness  that  this  was  not  the  original  sense 
by  representing  that  the  seven  were  appointed  "deacons"  of  the  Hellenists,  as 
against  certain  previously  appointed  deacons  of  the  Hebrews. 

3  The  reservation  of  the  term  to  the  Twelve  belongs  to  the  later  ecclesiasticism. 
Outside  Luke  it  is  applied  but  twice  in  the  gospels  to  the  disciples.  Paul  em- 
ploys it  of  others,  the  Didache  of  the  travelling  evangelists  of  the  later  time.  The 
earliest  fathers  seldom  apply  the  title  to  the  "  beloved  disciple,"  to  whom  they 
attribute  no  missionary  career. 


218  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

administrative  BiuKovla  either  falls  upon  them  (8  :  14)  or,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  provision  for  "the  poor  saints"  contributed 
by  Antioch,  is  committed  to  "  elders  "  (11  :  30).  Thus  R 
shows  the  interest  of  his  time  in  his  conception  of  the  part 
played  by  the  Twelve  in  the  spread  of  the  gospel,^  and  more 
particularly  his  interest  in  the  origin  of  the  later  ecclesiastical 
institutions  of  "widows,"  the  KaOrj^iepivr)  htaKovia^  and  the 
"deacons."  But  all  this  later  officialism  is  imposed  by 
literary  violence  upon  the  source,  which  has  other  views, ^ 
and  in  the  actual  story  is  perpetually  escaping  from  and 
contradicting  these  pragmatic  restrictions. 

The  story  of  Acts  6-8  of  the  spread  of  the  gospel  beyond 
the  barriers  of  Judaism  is  thus  seen  to  be  one  whose  univer- 
salism,  in  spite  of  R's  restraining  hand,  far  outstrips  not 
only  the  Petrine,  but  even  the  Petro-Pauline  elements  of 
the  work.  Far  from  being  content  to  resign  to  the  apostolic 
body,  as  R's  theory  requires  (1  :  8),  or  to  Peter  the  chief 
apostle,  as  his  Petrine  source  (Acts  9  :  32-11  :  18)  requires,* 
the  credit  of  having  been  God's  chosen  instrument  to  pro- 
claim the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles  (Acts  15  :  7),  this  element 
will  not  even  resign  it  to  Paul.  From  the  very  outset,  it 
maintains,  Hellenists  like  Stephen  and  Philip  perceived  the 

1  Cf.  Acts  1 :  21-26  for  our  author's  conception  of  "  apostleship  "  and  its  neces- 
sary qualifications. 

2  See  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.,  Ixv. 

'  Note  the  characterization  of  the  Seven  as  nk^fiptis  irveifxaros  /col  (To<t)ias  (v.  3 ; 
cf.  Luke  21  :  14,  15),  and  of  Stephen  in  particular  as  HvSpa  irKripr)  iriaTeus  koI 
TTPfifiaTos  (v.  .5)  in  contrast  with  v.  8 ;  and  their  actual  work  (6 :  10 ;  7  :  2-53 ;  8  :  5  ff., 
12,  26-40;  11  :  19  f.)  with  the  formal  ordination  (v.  2  f).  The  ordination  scene 
should  be  compared  with  13  :  1-3,  which  reduces  the  evangelistic  work  of  Paul  in 
a  similar  un historical  way  under  ecclesia.stical  form  and  authority. 

*  N.  B.  the  3  text  of  11:2*0  fifv  oZv  TUtrpos  Sta  iKavov  xP^vov  T)0€\ri<rfv  iroptv- 
drjvatus  'lepo(T6\vfj.a-  Kai  ■Kpo<T<p<ijvri<Ta.s  roiii  dSfKcpovs,  kuI  ^TTicrT7]pt^as  ai/rovs  ir6\ov 
x6yov  TToiovufvos  5io  tcDi'  xiipwv  [Nestle,  Si'  auTwv  ix<ipft  ^]  SiSdaKwy  avrovs. 
Here  Peter  is  engaged  normally  in  mission  work,  contrary  to  R's  representation 
(8: 1,25),  but  in  harmony  with  the  m/)/('ca</ons  of  the  source  (9:32, 38;  11  :  12).  The 
style  also  is  too  thoroughly  Lucan  to  be  mere  scribal  corruption.  We  are  there- 
fore probably  nearer  the  source  than  in  the  a  text.  It  is  significant,  then,  that 
the  parallel  with  the  Pauline  source  (cf.  15  :  1  ff.  etc.)  is  so  close  as  to  require  that 
a  careful  editor  of  the  two  in  combination  should  modify  the  /3  text  to  the  form 
of  a. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  219 

inherent  universalism  of  the  gospel,  and  that  not  by  a  change 
in  the  divine  economy  through  the  death  of  Christ,  but  as 
the  inner  and  spiritual  sense  of  the  Old  Testament  itself, 
brought  to  light  in  the  appearance  of  Christ  as  the  giver  of 
the  New  Law,  the  second  Moses. 

Thus  the  story  of  the  seven  Hellenistic  evangelists,  despite 
constant  modifying  and  qualifying  additions,  appears  to  pro- 
ceed from  a  type  of  Christian  universalism  more  radical  in 
some  respects  than  Paulinism  itself.  The  original  narrative 
appears  indeed  to  have  undergone  drastic  readjustment.  In 
view  of  this,  and  of  the  unmistakable  fondness  either  of  R, 
or  one  of  his  sources,  for  scenes  of  Christian  uTroXoyla  before 
tribunals  (Acts  4  :  5-22;  5  :  17-42;  18  :  12-17;  19  :  33-41; 
22  :  1-22;  23  :  1-10;  24  :  1-23;  25  :  23-26  :  32)  we  have 
reason  to  look  upon  the  setting  of  Stephen's  speech  as  more 
or  less  editorially  recast  and  adapted.  In  particular,  6  :  11- 
7  :  1,  reproducing  the  elements  of  Mark  14  :  55-60  (omitted 
in  the  "former  treatise"),  and  7  :  65,  56,  58^-60;  8  :  1  (first 
and  last  clauses),  3,  reproducing  Acts  22 :  4,  5,  20 ;  26  :  10 ; 
Luke  22  :  69 ;  23  :  34,  46,  appear  to  be  in  disagreement  with 
the  discourse  both  as  to  form  and  substance,  and  are  adapted, 
on  the  contrary,  to  adjust  it  to  the  general  scheme.  We  may 
regard  it  as  probable,  therefore,  that  in  the  original,  instead 
of  the  "great  signs  and  wonders"  of  v.  8,  for  which  we  are 
not  prepared  by  the  description  of  Stephen  in  v.  5  as  dvBpa 
irXrjpr)  Trt'o-rect)?  Kol  Trvev/iaro'i  dylov,  nor  by  his  actual  history, 
but  only  by  the  altered  form  of  the  characterization  in  v.  8, 
irXrjpT]'^  Xapiro<i  Kol  Sui/a/xeo)?,^  there  will  have  stood  the  sub- 
stance of  that  which  R  has  transferred  in  9  :  29  to  the 
account  of  Paul  —  quite  unhistorically,  as  we  learn  from 
Galatians  1  :  21-24  ^  —  "  Stephen  spake  and  disputed  with 

1  See  Spitta,  op.  cit.,  p.  96. 

2  There  is  scarcely  need  to  demonstrate  the  drastic  treatment  the  author  of 
Luke- Acts  has  elsewhere  given  to  his  material.  Familiar  illustrations  are  found  in 
the  Gospel  and  in  Acts  2:1-11,  where  the  phenomenon  of  glossolaly  referred  to  in 
the  incorporated  speech  2  :14-i0  (cf.  10  :  44-46 ;  11  :  15)  is  developed  into  a  parallel 
to  midrashic  accounts  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  from  Sinai  at  Pentecost  in  seventy 
languages  at  once  (Spitta,  op.  cit.,  and  Haussrath,  N.  T.  Times,  II,  ii.  p.  117). 


220  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  Hellenists."  This  view  of  R's  activity  here  has  further 
corroboration  in  the  historical  objections  encountered  by  the 
trial  scene  he  has  produced;  for  so  disorderly  a  judicial  mur- 
der on  the  part  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  this  time  is  unlikely  in 
itself  and  still  more  unlikely  to  have  been  overlooked  by 
Pilate. 

The  result  of  our  critical  scrutiny  of  the  present  setting  of 
the  discourse  will  be  that  its  original  setting  was  more  like 
the  scene  depicted  in  6  :  8-10,  where  Stephen,  nobly  play- 
ing his  part  as  an  ''''evangelist^''  proves  "the  wisdom  and  the 
Spirit  by  which  he  spake,  disputing  against "  certain  of  the 
synagogue  called  "  Synagogue  of  the  Libyans^  Cyrenians  and 
Alexandrians."  1  Its  imperfect  adaptation  to  its  present  set- 
ting will  be  due  to  alteration,  not  of  the  discourse,  but  of  the 
narrative,^  by  R.^ 

Again  the  speech  (2  :  14-40)  presents  the  Ascension  as  an  inference  from  Scriptnre 
(Ps.l  10:1)  and  from  the  charismatic  outpouring  (so  Eph.  4  :  7  £f.),  whereas  in  the 
narrative  (1  :  9-1 1 )  it  rests  on  the  testimony  of  the  senses.  Similarly  tlie  Pauline 
speeches  reveal  a  knowledge  of  the  true  significance  of  the  final  visit  to  Jerusalem 
(24:17).  In  the  narrative  the  "  ministration  to  the  saints  "  (Rom.  15:25-31)  is 
transferred  to  an  earlier  (unhistorical)  visit  (11:39  f.). 

1  For  /iifieprivccv  read  with  CEcumenius,  Lyra,  Beza,  Clericus,  Gothofredus 
and  Volckenaer,  \ifiv(TTlvwv  (see  Blass,  Philol.  of  Gospels,  p.  69  f.) ;  there  wiU 
thus  appear  to  he  but  two  synagogues  concerned,  an  African,  comprising  Jews 
from  northern  Egypt,  and  an  Asian  comprising  those  of  Paul's  native  province 
and  vicinity.  But  even  this  is  one  more  tlian  was  contemplated  by  the  writer  of 
the  opening  words  dvfffT-qcrav  S4  nues  twv  iK  rris  (rvvaywyrii  .  .  .  (x«  gig-  correct  to 
rwv  \iyojx4vwv).  I  judge  Kal  twv  dirb  KjAi/cmj  Koi  'Acrlas  to  be  an  addition  from  the 
hand  which  introduces  Saul  in  7  :  58  and  8  : 1  (D  and  A  have  KiKiKias  only).  This 
one  synagogue  of  tlie  Egyptian  Hellenists  with  which  the  original  story  was 
apparently  concerned  will  doubtless  be  none  other  than  that  known  to  us  from 
Talmudic  sources  as  existing  in  Jerusalem,  viz.,  "  the  Synagogue  of  the  Alexan- 
drians" {MegilL,  f.  73,4). 

2  It  need  hardly  be  pointed  out  that  alteration  of  the  discourse  is  not  only  less 
likely  a  priori,  than  of  the  narrative,  but  that  this  is  the  actual  practice  of  all  the 
synoptic  writers,  whose  closest  coincidence  is  always  in  the  discourse,  and  widest 
variation  in  the  narrative  context.  It  is  of  importance,  however,  to  emphasize 
the  fact  in  this  instance,  because  of  the  recent  attempt  of  Ilarnack  {Das  Magni- 
ficat, 1900)  to  prove  the  Autor  ad  Theophilum  himself  the  composer  of  the  Lucan 
psalmody. 

8  The  question  whether,  as  Spitta  holds,  R  had  a  second  source,  parallel  to 
that  containing  the  speech,  as  his  authority  for  the  new  setting,  or  —  as  main- 
tained by  Weiss,  Hilgenfeld,  and  others  —  incorporated  the  embellishments  from 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  221 

Thus,  while  none  of  the  proposed  source  analyses  of  Acts 
6-8  may  satisfy,  enough  is  made  probable  to  forbid  our  taking 
the  indictment  of  the  court  scene,  6  :  11-14  as  our  starting- 
point  for  the  interpretation  of  the  speech,  according  to  the 
usual  method.  We  shall  be  compelled,  on  the  contrary, 
to  remove  the  speech  from  its  present  forensic  setting  and 
determine  its  inherent  structure  and  logical  sequence.  To 
any  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  loci  classici  of  early  Christian 
apologetics  this  task  should  not  be  difficult.  For  as  soon  as 
we  review  the  speech  independently  it  declares  itself  as  deal- 
ing with  the  three  institutions  the  right  to  which  is  disputed 
between  Jews  and  Christians:  (1)  The  Abrahamic  Inhek- 
ITANCE,  the  KXrjpovoiJiia,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal 
(v.  8).  (2)  The  Mosaic  Revelation,  the  Xoyia  ^wvra  (v. 
38).  (3)  The  Davidic  Presence  of  God  in  Zion,  the 
Shekinah  or  Inhabitatio  Dei,  the  a-Krjvwfia  (more  exactly 
7rapaaKrjV(o<ji<;)   Oeov   (v.   46). 

These,  the  centres  of  interest  of  sacred  history,  are  also 
the  foci  of  dispute  for  this  age  of  the  universalizing  of  reli- 
gion, because  they  embody  the  essence  of  Jewish  particular- 
ism. Philo  himself  had  rationalized  the  first  in  the  treatise 
whose  very  title  is  Quis  heres  rerum  divinarum?  A  similar 
title  might  well  be  applied  to  Galatians  3  to  5 ;  for  Paul  also  is 
here  debating  the  question.  Who  are  the  true  "  seed  of  Abra- 
ham," the  heirs  of  God?  Both  Philo  and  Paul,  each  in  his 
own  way,  strive  to  put  upon  Scripture  a  broader  sense  than 
the  literal  interpretation  of  Jewish  claims  to  be  the  "  heirs  of 
the  world." 

Equally  fundamental  to  the  age,  and  more  diversely  settled 
is  the  question  of  the  Law^  Who  has  the  true  revelation  of 

the  trial  scene  of  Jesus  on  his  own  authority,  may  be  regarded  for  our  present 
purpose  as  subordinate.  The  fact  that  the  transpositions  of  Marcan  material  in 
Luke  seem  generally  to  have  a  basis  in  the  tradition  attested  by  Matthew,  the 
closer  resemblance  of  Acts  6  :  14  to  Matt.  26  :  61  than  to  Mark,  the  extra-canonical 
parallels,  and  the  remaining  presence  of  apparently  unintended  duplicates  (Acts 
7  :  1,  55  f.,  59  f.  =  Luke  22  :  66-69  ;  23  :  34,  46)  are  in  favor  of  a  second  source. 
According  to  Spitta,  the  connection  of  this  source  was  simply  6  :  12*-7  : 1,  55  f.  .  . . 
58*-60,  a  close  parallel  to  Matt.  26  :  59-66. 


222  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

God's  will?  Has  God  vouchsafed  Xo'yLa  fcovra,  a  vo^io^ 
Bvvdfievo'i  ^(ooTTOLrjaai  (Gal.  3  :  21),  a  j/o/xo?  t^9  ^wt;?  (2  Esdr. 
14  :  30)  ?  And  if  so,  where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  The  Jews 
"search  the  Scriptures  because  they  think  that  in  them  they 
have  eternal  life"  (John  5  :  39).  Are  they  right?  Or  are 
the  Christians,  who  declare  that  the  value  of  the  Scriptures 
is  only  in  their  testimony  to  Christ  the  living  Word,  of 
whom  Moses  wrote,  but  to  whom  his  professed  followers 
"will  not  come  that  they  might  have  life?"  Paul  admits 
(Rom.  3  :  2 ;  9  :  4)  that  primarily  all  three,  /cXT/poi/o/it'a,  Xoyia, 
and  aKrjvoofjLo,  are  prerogatives  of  Israel.  In  Rom.  3  :  2,  the 
second,  "  That  they  were  entrusted  with  the  oracles  of  God  " 
(ra  XojLa  tov  Oeov)  is  even  declared  to  be  "first  of  all." 

The  third  prerogative  claimed  by  Israel,  the  Tabernacling 
(OtJ^)  of  Grod  with  man  is  one  whose  literary  history  dates  from 
the  period  of  the  Book  of  Jashar  itself  (1  Kings  8  :  53, 
LXX)  through  that  of  the  Law  (Deut.  33  :  12;  Exod.  29  : 
45  1),  the  prophets  (Is.  8  :  18,  57  :  15;  Zech.  2  :  10  f.,  8  : 
3,  8),  and  psalmists  (Ps.  68  :  16-18;  74  :  2;  135  :  21),  down 
even  to  that  of  the  Talmud  in  its  favorite  term  the  Shekinah. 
The  question  of  this  "dwelling  (literally  "tabernacling") 
of  God  "  with  his  people  is  always  whether  it  is  local,  insep- 
arable from  Zion,  or  spiritual  (Is.  57  :  15).^ 

Our  author  aims  to  present  the  Christian  interpretation  of 
these  Scriptural  prerogatives  of  the  "people  of  God  "  in  their 
historical  order.  He  reviews  accordingly  the  sacred  history 
in  its  three  great  periods,  (1)  the  Abrahamic,  or  patriarchal, 
with  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  vv.  2-16;  (2)  the  Mosaic, 
with  the  covenant  of  the  Law,  w.  17-43 ;  (3)  the  Davidic, 
with  the  covenant  of  the  Shekinah  (Ps.  89  :  7-37),  vv.  44-50. 

The  speaker's  object  is  twofold:  (a)  to  prove  that  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  former  dispensation  were  not  ultimate  but 
typical,  foreshadowing  those  of  the  Messianic  age ;  and  (b)  to 

^  The  purely  spiritual  conception  corresponding  to  Is.  57  :  15  .ippears  in  John 
4:  20-24 ;  14  :  23.  In  1  :  12  and  2  :  21  Jesus'  flesh  is  the  o-K^vtoMa—  Shekiua.  The 
two  views  are  not  identical ;  the  former  agrees  best  with  the  saying  of  Jesus,  the 
latter  finds  support  in  Jewish  usage  (2  Cor.  5:1;  2  Pt.  1:13,  14). 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  223 

prove  that  its  theocratic  leaders  and  prophets  were  analo- 
gously types  of  the  Messiah  himself  in  their  efforts  for 
redemption  as  well  as  in  the  rejection  they  suffered  at  the 
hands  of  the  people.^  Hence  (4)  the  application,  vv.  51-53, 
summing  up  the  whole  speech  in  the  climactic  denunciation : 
"  Ye  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears  (i.  e.,  outwardly  people 
of  the  covenant,  v.  8,  but  actually  deaf  and  disobedient  to  its 
import),  ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  author 
thus  brings  to  bear  with  cumulative  force  his  gathered  evi- 
dences of  Israel's  blindness ;  for  he  who  places  this  splendid 
piece  of  rhetoric  in  the  mouth  of  the  proto-martyr  looks  forth 
himself  upon  a  wider  audience  than  Stephen's.  It  is  the 
same  which  Justin,  after  his  Apology  to  the  heathen,  con- 
fronts in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew,  the  audience  of 
Aristides  and  the  apologists  generally,  the  whole  unbeliev- 
ing world,  which,  if  the  foil}'  of  its  heathenism  be  exposed, 
retorts:  If,  then,  your  Christ  be  the  Messiah  foretold  to 
Israel,  why  is  he  repudiated  by  his  own  people?  Why  is 
their  interpretation  of  their  Scriptures,  to  which  you  also 
appeal,  so  different?  The  apologist's  answer  is,  These  Scrip- 
tures themselves  bear  witness  of  their  spiritual  intent.  More- 
over, they  testify  that  stiff-necked  Israel  has  always  lacked 
the  needful  spiritual  insight,  has  always  grasped  the  ex- 
ternal, unessential  sense,  turning  blind  eyes,  a  deaf  ear,  an 
unwilling  heart  to  the  true  and  higher  sense.  Israel's  re- 
jection of  the  Messiah  of  whom  Moses  and  the  prophets  did 
write,  as  their  fathers  rejected  and  stoned  the  prophets,  is 
but  one  proof  the  more  of  his  Messiahship.^  Such  in  outline 
is  the  argument  of  the  speech.  We  must  look  about  us  for 
parallels  in  the  contemporary  literature,  considering  first  the 

^  For  demonstration  in  some  detail  of  this  twofold  purpose,  see  the  discussion 
of  the  argument  of  the  speech  below. 

■•^  Observe  the  predominance  of  this  note  in  the  Oxyrhynchus  logia :  III.  [IV.], 
VI.  [V.],  and  VIII.  [VII.].  The  fragment  itself  shows  closest  affinity  with  the 
Lucan  gospel ;  its  mystic,  enigmatic  form  of  expression  well  illustrates  the  char- 
acteristic Alexandrian-Christian  fondness  for  contrasting  the  inner  and  outer 
sense. 


224  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

application,  vv.  51-53,  the  sense  of  which,  fortunately,  ad- 
mits no  dispute. 

The  first  to  deal  in  an  apologetic  sense  with  the  phenome- 
non of  the  obduracy  of  Israel  is  the  apostle  Paul  in  Romans 
9  to  11.  It  belongs  therefore  to  the  very  beginnings  of 
Christian  literature,  and  is  an  item  of  no  small  importance 
in  the  dating  of  our  gospels,  all  of  which  have  more  or  less 
to  say  on  this  matter  as  a  fulfilment  of  Isaiah  6  :  9  f.^  (cf. 
Mark  4  :  11  f.  and  parallels;  John  12  :  37-43),  — more  as 
time  advances. 

But  there  are  differences.  All  our  New  Testament  writers 
agree  that  Jesus  has  brought  a  new  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture. But,  as  Haruack  has  shown,  there  is  one  mode  of 
dealing  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  conflicting  interpreta- 
tion thereof  by  Jews  and  Christians,  especially  affected  by 
Alexandrian  writers  —  continuous,  in  fact,  with  pre-Christian 
Alexandrianism  —  and  another  which  derives  from  Paul, 
though  even  Paul  is  not  free  from  occasional  Alexandrianisms 
(1  Cor.  10  :  11;  Col.  2  :  17). 

Paul  maintained  that  the  old  covenant  had  a  real  and 
direct  application.  It  was  "  spiritual "  and  divine  for  its  own 
time^  though  now  superseded.  Alexandrianism  '^  followed 
the  lead  of  Philo  in  maintaining  that  the  literal  sense  had 
always  been  imperfect,  if  not  evil.  As  time  advances  and 
the  hostility  between  Jews  and  Christians  becomes  more 
bitter,  the  Alexandrian  view  tends  more  and  more  to  super- 
sede the  Pauline.  Even  the  title  "  Jew "  is  a  lie  when 
claimed  by  the  Hebrew  (Rev.  3  :  9),  or  a  term  of  opprobrium 
(Gospel  of  John,  passim),  and  their  interpretation  of  their 

1  First  employed  by  Paul,  Rom.  11:8,  and  thence  interpolated  in  Mark  4:12 
after  the  logion  nvar-itpiov  ifuhv  i/J-ol  koi  to7s  vlo7s  rod  oIkov  fxov.  See  Resch, 
Agrapha,  §  9,  legion   17,  p.    103. 

2  Including  certain  Palestinian  .sects  of  E.sscnio  type,  whose  relation  to  Egyp-_ 
tian  thought  is  not  clear.  Tlie  Ehionite-Ciiri.stian  Clementine  Homilies  and  Recog- 
nitions are  derived  from  the.'<e  sectaries  and  are  explicit  in  their  teaching  that  the 
illuminati  of  even  ancient  Israel  had  constantly  perceived  the  worthlcssness  of 
the  external  sense  of  Scripture  and  lived  according  to  the  inner  and  spiritual, 
Recogn.,  i.  37. 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  225 

Scriptures  is  wilfully  perverse  and  accompanied  with  text- 
ual mutilation.  1  In  the  cruder  representation  of  Pseudo- 
Barnabas  the  same  use  is  made  of  the  prophetic,  spiritualized 
view  of  circumcision  as  in  Acts  7  :  51.  But  here  the  typo- 
logical interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  ordinances  is  prefaced  by 
the  explanation  that  Israel's  adoption  of  the  external  sense 
was  due  to  the  teaching  of  an  evil  angel,  whereas  the  Chris- 
tian's ears  are  circumcised  "that  hearing  the  word  we  might 
believe."  "He  saith  unto  them:  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord  your 
God  (so  I  find  the  commandment):  sow  not  upon  thorns,^ 
be  ye  circumcised  to  your  Lord.'  And  what  meaneth  he? 
'Be  ye  circumcised  in  the  hardness  of  your  heart;  and  then  ye 
will  not  stiffen  your  neck. '  Take  this  again :  '  Behold,  saith 
the  Lord,  all  the  Gentiles  are  uncircumcised  in  their  fore- 
skin, but  this  people  is  uncircumcised  in  their  hearts.'" 
Then  follows  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  ordinances 
of  clean  and  unclean  meats,  winding  up :  "  Ye  see  how  wise 
a  law-giver  Moses  was.  But  whence  should  they  (the  Jews) 
perceive  or  understand  these  things?  Howbeit  we  (Chris- 
tians) having  justly  perceived  the  commandments,  tell  them 
as  the  Lord  willed.  To  this  end  he  circumcised  our  ears  and 
hearts,  that  we  might  understand  these  things."  ^  The  whole 
epistle  consists,  in  fact,  of  an  exposition  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament (cc.  i-xvii.),  which  the  writer  insists  was  meant  to  be 
understood  allegorically,  followed  by  "another  lesson  and 
teaching "  (cc.  xviii.-xxi.),  consisting  simply  of  the  Two 
Waps,  incorporated  bodily,  as  "the  new  law  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  which  is  free  from  the  yoke  of  constraint,"  and 
which  of  course,  as  being  "unveiled,"  requires  no  allegorical 
interpretation. 

To  the  Alexandrian  Christian,  accordingly,  the  distinction 


1  So  Justin,  Dial,  with  Trypho,  Ixx.  11  ff.,  and  the  later  writers. 
.     2  The  interpolator  of  Mark  4  :  1 1  f.  (see  Enc.  Bibl.  s.  v.  Gospels,  col.  1866)  mani- 
festing the  same  anti-Judaic  spirit  and  employing  the  same  prophecy  (Is.  6  :  9  f .) 
as  Acts  28:26f. ;  John  12:37-41,  connects  the  parable  of  the  Sower  with  the 
same  "commandment"  as  Barnabas,  i.  e.,  Jer.  4:3. 

8  Barn.  ix.  4  ff.  and  x.  11  ff.,  employing  Deut.  10:16;  Jer,  4 : 3,  4  and  9  :  26. 

15 


226  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

between  the  new  and  the  old  is  not,  as  to  the  follower  of 
Paul,  temporal,  the  superseding  of  law  by  grace,  obedience 
by  filial  trust;  but  qualitative,  the  inner  for  the  outer. 
Faith  tends  to  become  insight,  gnosis,  vision  of  the  spiritual 
realities  through  which  even  the  Old  Testament  worthies 
were  able  to  perceive  the  nullity  of  outward  things,  even  the 
outward  sense  of  the  law,  and  apprehend  the  real  and  spirit- 
ual significance  (Heb.  11  :  1  to  12  :  2). 

As  the  universalisra  of  the  narrative  in  Acts  6  to  8  out- 
does Paul,  so  the  application  of  Stephen's  speech  is  more 
anti-Judaic  than  Paul,  tending  toward  the  Alexandrianism 
of  Ps. -Barnabas  and  the  apologists.  Paul  finds  no  fault  with 
the  pre-Christian  Jew  for  not  taking  the  law  spiritually. 
But  our  author  takes  him  to  task.  Israel  should  have  per- 
ceived the  inner  sense  of  the  institutions  which  the  speaker 
has  reviewed  in  their  true  significance.  But  they  were 
"stiff-necked  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  always 
resisting  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye. 
Which  of  the  prophets  did  not  your  fathers  persecute?  and 
they  killed  them  which  shewed  before  of  the  coming  of  the 
Righteous  One;  of  whom  ye  have  now  become  betrayers  and 
murderers,  ye  who  received  the  law  to  stand  as  ordinances 
of  angels  (et<?  Biaraya<;  ayyeXcov)  and  kept  it  not  "  (Acts  7  : 
51-53). 

But  the  question  raised  concerning  the  forensic  setting  of 
the  speech  may  be  inverted.  It  may  be  asked.  Might  not 
the  Autor  ad  Theophilum  be  responsible  for  the  other  ele- 
ment, having  embellished  a  simple  narrative  of  forensic  pro- 
cedure with  features  derived  from  his  own  conception,  in 
particular  an  airoKoyia  of  his  own  composition  ?  ^ 

1  So  Baur,  Zcller,  and  Overbeck.  But  see  especially  the  important  contribu- 
tion of  Iliiniack  above  referred  to  (Das  Mdi/nifirat,  1900),  in  which  the  reason- 
ing is  really  conclusive  as  to  the  composition  of  the  poems  of  Luke  1-2  by  a  hand 
traceable  throughout  the  Lucan  narrative.  The  question  we  raise  against  Ilar- 
nack  is  only  this:  Is  it  the  last  hand,  the  hand  of  the  Autor  ad  Theophilum;  or 
the  hand  of  some  writer  whose  work  is  largely  incorporated  by  1??  The  relation 
of  the  narrative  to  the  discourse  material,  as  above  set  forth  (p.  219),  suggests  the 
latter  answer. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  227 

In  one  respect  the  facts  are  favorable  to  such  a  view.  The 
speech  in  its  general  framework  aims  to  meet  the  question, 
What  is  the  relation  of  Christianity  to  Judaism  ?  It  meets 
it  with  the  bold  answer,  Christianity  is  the  true  heir  to  all 
the  Scriptural  prerogatives  of  the  people  of  God.  It  thus 
coincides  in  a  general  way  with  the  answer  of  the  Autor  ad 
Theophilum  to  the  familiar  objection,  "He  came  unto  his 
own,  and  his  own  received  him  not,"  in  a  demonstration 
from  Scripture  that  the  rejection  was  foretold,  and  that 
"  thus  it  behooved  the  Christ  to  suffer  and  to  enter  into  his 
glory"  (cf.  Luke  24  :  19-21,  25-27,  44-47).  In  fact,  had  it 
failed  to  coincide  to  this  extent  with  the  purposes  of  R,  it 
is  manifest  that  it  would  never  have  been  incorporated. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  Lucan  appeals  to  the  career  of  the 
iraU  Oeov  of  Deutero-Isaiah,  are  more  characteristic  of  cer- 
tain parts  of  the  work.  Distinctive  features  are  more  thickly 
sown  in  special  chapters  which  there  is  independent  reason 
for  designating  a  "Special  Source."  Nevertheless,  the  out- 
line and  grouping  of  elements  in  the  whole  work  remain,  on 
which  to  base  our  judgment  of  R's  special  animus  in  the 
composition.  From  these  it  is  apparent  that  his  purpose 
was  substantially  the  same  as  that  attributed  to  the  Special 
Source.  How  else  account  for  his  departure  from  the  estab- 
lished tradition  (Mark  1  :  14  ff.)  of  how  Jesus  began  his 
career  in  Capernaum,  to  open  it  with  the  story  of  his 
rejection  in  Nazareth  (Luke  4  :  16  ff.),  whose  nucleus  is  the 
well-known  logion,  "A  prophet  is  of  no  repute  in  his  own 
country,"  (Trarpi?)  and  which  ends  with  the  significant  cita- 
tion of  Elijah's  mission  to  the  Gentile  widow  of  Zarephath, 
though  "there  were  many  widows  in  Israel,"  and  Elisha's 
healing  of  the  Syrian  Naaman,  though  "there  were  many 
lepers  in  Israel"?  How  shall  we  account  for  the  fact  that 
he  ends  his  Trpcoro?  X6709  with  a  reference  by  the  risen  Christ 
to  his  cruel  rejection  and  death  as  that  which,  according  to 
Law  and  Prophets  and  Psalms,  "it  behooved  the  Christ  to 
suffer  and  to  enter  into  bis  glory,"  coupled  with  a  direction 
to  preach  him  to  the  Gentiles;   and  that  he  concludes  his 


228  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

hevTepo^  \0709  with  the  appeal  of  Paul  in  Rome  to  the  classic 
passage  from  Isaiah  6  :  9  f .  and  the  declaration  "  Be  it 
known  therefore  unto  you  that  this  salvation  of  God  is  sent 
unto  the  Gentiles:  they  will  also  hear"? 

Surely  none  familiar  with  J.  Weiss'  admirable  Ahsicht  und 
Character  der  Apostelgeschichte  can  any  longer  be  blind  to  the 
significance  of  our  author's  stereotyped  method  of  relating 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  Once  for  all, 
that  method  is  this:  —  first  the  offer  of  it  to  the  Jews,  with 
the  warning  "Beware  lest  that  come  upon  you  which  is 
spoken  in  the  prophets,  '  Behold,  ye  despisers,  and  wonder 
and  perish ;  For  I  work  a  work  in  your  days,  a  work  which 
ye  shall  in  no  wise  believe,  if  one  declare  it  unto  you ; '  then, 
when  '  the  Jews  see  the  multitudes,  and,  filled  with  jealousy, 
contradict  the  things  spoken  and  blaspheme, '  the  apostles  are 
driven  to  address  the  Gentiles,  declaring  to  the  Jews :  '  It 
was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should  first  be  spoken  to 
you.  Seeing  ye  thrust  it  from  you  and  judge  yourselves 
unworthy  of  eternal  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the  Gentiles,  For  so 
hath  the  Lord  commanded  us,  saying, 

I  have  set  thee  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles 

That  thou  shouldest  be  for  salvation  unto  the  ends  of  the 
earth.'" 

With  a  dominant  purpose,  and  an  attitude  toward  unbe- 
lieving Jewry,  thus  indicated,  the  author  of  Luke-Acts  is 
certainly  so  nearly  in  accord  with  primitive  Christian  apolo- 
getics in  general,  and  with  that  of  Stephen's  speech  in  partic- 
ular, that  we  need  not  wonder  at  his  adoption  of  it. 

Per  contra,  we  cannot  agree  with  those  who  ascribe  the 
composition  of  the  speech,  along  with  the  rest  of  the  dis- 
courses of  Acts,  to  the  author  himself.  Apart  from  the 
relation  of  the  discourse  to  its  narrative  setting,  the  charac- 
teristics of  both  thought  and  language  are  distinguishable 
from  those  of  the  Autor  ad  Theophilum,  and  show  a  closer 
relation  than  Luke-Acts  as  a  whole  to  the  distinctively 
Alexandrian  tradition,  phraseology,  and  style.  Besides  this, 
the  speech  advances  doctrinally  as  far  beyond  the  standpoint 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  229 

of  Paul,  as  the  Lucan  narrative  taken  as  a  whole  lags  behind 
the  actual  course  of  Pauline  missions,  so  that  in  both  doc- 
trine and  historical  application  we  have  here  a  more  radi- 
cal point  of  view  than  that  of  our  ecclesiastically  minded 
compiler. 


230  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 


II 

STYLE   AND  VOCABULARY 

But  let  us  first  examine  the  formal  affinities  of  the  speech. 

(1)  The  midrashic  character  of  the  tradition  followed  is  no- 
torious. A  review  of  its  features  will  show  not  only  peculiari- 
ties which  are  only  occasional  in  Luke- Acts  (e.  g.,  Acts  2  : 
1  ff.),  but  can  be  traced  more  particularly  in  Alexandrian- 
Ebionite  sources. 

In  V.  2  the  tradition  is  followed  which  inferred  from 
Genesis  15  :  7  that  a  theophany  had  already  been  vouch- 
safed to  Abraham  in  Ur,  "before  he  dwelt  in  Haran,"  as  in 
Philo,  De  Abr.,  14  :  15  (II.  p.  11,  16,  ed.  of  Mangey),  and 
Josephus  {Ant.^  I.  7,  1;  cf.  Neh.  9  :  7).  In  v.  4  Abraham 
is  made  to  leave  Haran  after  the  death  of  Terah,  against 
Genesis  11  :  26,  32 ;  12  :  4.  This  representation  also  recurs 
in  Philo  (De  Migr.  Abr.,  p.  415).  In  v.  15  the  number  of 
Jacob's  family  is  75  (70  in  Gen.  46  :  27;  Deut.  10  :  22; 
Exod.  1:5;  Hebrew  70,  LXX,  75).  Philo  notes  the  difPer- 
ence.  The  Clementines  have  72  (Recoj.,  I.  34),  i.  e.,  6  x  12, 
splitting  the  difference.  In  v.  16  there  is  a  confusion  of 
Hebron  and  Shechem,  Genesis  23  :  3-20 ;  50  :  13  and  Joshua 
24  :  32,  with  the  result  that  Abraham's  only  possession  in 
Canaan  is  a  tomb,  even  this,  as  the  author  is  careful  to  note, 
not  given  by  God,  but  "bought  for  a  price  in  silver,"  and 
not  at  revered  Hebron,  but  despised  Shechem.  ^  The  curious 
change  in  the  tradition  which  thus  makes  all  the  patriarchs 
share  a  common  tomb,  instead  of  Joseph  only  being  buried 

1  Cf.  tlie  "  humanitarianism  of  Luke  "  as  evinced  in  his  special  plea  for  Sa- 
maritans, Luke  9 :  51-56;  10:30-37;  17:11-19;  Acts  8 :  4-25,  etc. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  231 

in  Shechem  (Josh.  24  :  32)  and  Jacob  in  Hebron  (Gen.  50  : 
13),  is  found  in  Josephus,  Ant.^  II.  8  :  2,  hut  with  the  signifi- 
cant difference  that  in  Josephus  the  Cave  of  Machpelah  in 
Hebron  is  the  common  site.  The  description  of  Moses,  vv. 
20,  22,  24  embellishes  the  Old  Testament  account  with 
midrashic  traits  reminding  us  of  Philo  {Vita  Mos.^  I.  3,  5; 
cf.  Jos.,  Ant.,  II.  9  ;  6,  7,  10),  while  the  motive  imputed  in 
V.  25  is  found  in  Philo  (Vita  Mos.,  I.  8,  9)  but  not  in  Scrip- 
ture. The  same  is  true  in  some  degree  of  the  distinction  of 
three  periods  of  forty  years  in  Moses'  life  (vv.  22,  30), ^  and 
the  angelic  character  of  the  theophany  at  Horeb  (v.  35)  and 
Sinai  (v.  38,  53).2  The  "  Red  "  Sea  as  the  scene  of  Pharaoh's 
overthrow  is  another  innovation.  As  the  "  Red  "  Sea  is  no- 
where mentioned  in  Scripture,  but  in  Wisdom  10  :  18;  19  : 
7;  1  Maccabees  4  :  2,  and  Hebrews  11  :  29,  Hilgenfeld's 
comparison  of  v.  36  to  Assumpt.  Mos.,  HI.  10,  "[Moses]  who 
suffered  many  things  in  Egypt  and  in  the  Red  Sea  and  in  the 
wilderness  forty  years  "  is  highly  significant.^ 

Thus  the  variations  of  tradition,  while  not  unexamjDled  in 
Palestinian  literature,  have  decided  afiQnities  with  Alexan- 
dria, and  an  Ebionite  animus. 

(2)  Such  light  as  the  vocabulary  and  diction  afford  is 
certainly  not  to  be  neglected.  Kranichfeld,  in  an  article 
entitled  G-edankengang  der  Rede  des  Stephanus,  in  St.  u. 
Krit.,  1900,  IV.,  pp.  541-562,  shows  successfully  enough 
how  far  short  expositors  have  come  in  the  attempt  to  trace 
the  real  course  of  thought,  and  perhaps  advances  somewhat 
beyond  his  predecessors  in  this  direction.  At  least  we  must 
admit  his  principle  that  departures  from  the  usual  form  of 

1  Found  also  in  Beresch.  Rabba,  f.  115:3;  Schemoth  Rabba,  f.  118:3. 

2  The  Clementines  have  for  the  former  instead  of  the  angel  "  the  true 
Prophet"  i.  e.,  Christ.  For  the  Sinai  theophany  "an  angel."  They  also  agree 
in  applying  the  400  years  of  Gen.  15  :  13  to  the  oppression  in  Egypt,  Recog.,  I.  34, 
35. 

8  See  Charles,  Assumption  of  Moses,  1897,  p.  Ixiii,  f. :  "  The  likeness  is  too  close 
to  be  accidental.  We  must  either  assume  that  Acts  7  :  36  is  derived  from  our  text 
(Ass.  Mos.),  or  that  III,  11  6  of  our  text  is  interpolated.  The  evidence  of  Apoc. 
Bar.  Ixxxiv.  3  is  against  the  latter  supposition  :  likewise  also  the  word  "  suffered." 


232  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  tradition  are  not  to  be  assumed  to  be  accidental.  His 
inferences  from  the  peculiarities  of  diction  and  style  are  quite 
superficial  and  inadequate.^  But  even  were  they  trustworthy, 
they  certainly  could  not  prove  more  than  that  the  Autor  ad 
Theophilum  has  here  drawn  from  a  written  source.  That 
this  source  was  the  actual  address  of  the  protomartyr,  rather 
than  one  of  the  8t7;7»;cret9  employed  by  R,  is  far  from  being 
even  indicated.  Of  the  aira^  Xey6/j,eva  adduced  by  Kranich- 
feld  {jxeTOiKiaev,  v.  4,  fxeroLKici),  v.  43,  ■)(^opTdafiaTa,  V.  11, 
cnria,  v.  12,  Karaao(l)iad/jievo<;,  v.  19,  dveiXero,  V.  21,  and 
i^oa")(p'iroiT)(xav^  v.  41),  all  save  fiercoKiaev,  v.  4  and  -^^opTcia- 
fjbaTa,  V.  11,  are  irrelevant,  because  belonging  to  quotations 
from  the  LXX.  It  is  surprising  that  so  recent  a  critic  should 
pass  over  in  silence  many  real  aira^  Xeyofieva  of  much  more 
telling  significance.  We  set  aside  all  words  and  phrases 
derived  from  LXX,  according  to  Nestle's  text  (1898),  which 
constitute  nearly  one  half  of  the  fifty-two  verses  under  con- 
sideration. Even  so  there  remain  the  following  to  be  added 
to  Kranichfeld's  two:  dp-vveaOai^  v.  24,  lo^Or]  (of  ordinary 
sight),  V.  26,  avvaWdaaetv  (in  Paul  KuraW.),  v.  26,  e(f)vjd- 
Sevaev,  V.  29  (yS  text),  avv  %etpt  dyyiXov,  v.  35,  XvrpcoTTj^,  v. 
35,  BtaBixea-Oat,  v.  45.  If  words  derived  from  LXX  were 
admitted  on  condition  that  no  intention  of  quotation  were 
apparent,  still  others  might  be  enumerated. 

As  an  argument  for  direct  derivation  of  the  speech  from 
Stephen  rather  than  from  R,  these  data  are  manifestly 
worthless.  Nor  does  it  gain  in  strength  even  if  we  grant  R 
(Luke?)  to  have  been  a  Gentile,  while  Stephen  was  a  Hel- 
lenist, from  the  occurrence  of  Hebraisms,^  of  which  there  is 
no  lack.  We  instance  only  eKUKwa-ev  rov  irocelv^  v.  19,  8ia 
yeipo^,  V.  25,  diro  TrpoacoTTov,  v.  45,  eupev  X"-P^^  ivcoTriov,  v. 
46,  etc.  Vogel  (Zur  Charakteristik  dcs  Lukas,  p.  33)  notes 
the  exceptional  absence  from  cc.  4,  6,  7,  10,  and  24  of  Acts 

1  For  more  thorough  treatment  of  the  matter  of  style,  phraseology,  and  lan- 
guage, see  Zeller,  Acts,  vol.  II,  p.  175.  For  evidence  of  composition  by  the  Autor 
ad  Theophilum  (better  the  author  of  Luke's  Special  Source),  Zeller  compares  6  :  8 
with  4:33  and  5:  12;  6:7  with  12:24;  7  :  48  with  17  :  24  &c. 

2  More  properly  Semitisms.     See  Dalnian,  Worte  Jesu,  p.  29. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  233 

of  the  classic  /xeV,  rare  in  the  New  Testament,  but  used  forty- 
four  times  in  Acts.  The  same  appears  to  be  true  in  c.  7  (7  : 
26  is  doubtful)  of  re,  employed  elsewhere  in  Acts  over  one 
hundred  times.  But  Hebraisms  are  notoriously  most  copious 
in  the  so-called  Special  Source  of  Luke,  particularly  Luke 
1  :  5-2  :  52. ^  Per  contra,  apBp€<i  aSeX<^ot,  v.  2,  is  a  Lucan 
Graecism  (Acts  2  :  29;  13  :  15;  15  :  7,  13;  22  :  1;  23  :  1, 
6;  28  :  17).  Acts  7,  accordingly,  is  not  more  strongly 
Semitic  in  style  than  some  other  parts  of  Luke- Acts,  nor  is 
R's  hand  untraceable ;  yet  as  a  whole  its  vocabulary  sets  it 
apart  from  the  adjoining  chapters. 

Much  more  significant,  to  the  present  writer's  mind  are 
certain  peculiar  and  rare  expressions,  not  absolutely  con- 
fined to  Acts  7,  but  occurring  elsewhere,  principally  in 
Luke's  peculium.  Paraphrases  of  the  names  of  God  and 
Christ  are  especially  noteworthy.  ^  We  observe  that  6  'T-v/ricrro? 
of  God,  absolutely,  occurs,  aside  from  the  speech  (v.  48)  onli/ 
in  Luke  1  :  32,  35,  76  and  6  :  35.^  Even  6  0eb<:  6  ui/rto-ro? 
does  not  occur  outside  of  Mark  5  :  7  and  parallels,  except  in 
Acts  16  :  17  and  Hebrews  7  :  1.*  Such  a  title  as  "  Redeemer  " 
we  surely  might  expect  to  find  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New 
Testament.  Yet  its  onli/  occurrence  is  in  v.  35,  where,  how- 
ever, its  application  to  Moses  is  obviously  intended  to  make 
him  appear  more  plainly  as  the  type  of  Christ.^     Is  it  not 

1  On  the  "  Hebraisms  "  of  Luke  1,  2,  see  Dalman,  op.  cit.,  p.  31  f. 

2  'O  dehs  rrjs  5J|tjj,  v.  2,  is  formally  excluded  by  our  rule  limiting  consideration 
to  expressions  of  the  author's  own.  In  reality  he  is  not  consciously  quoting  Ps. 
29  :  3,  and  the  remarkable  expression  is  clearly  his  own  free  choice  from  an  inde- 
finite number  of  possible  titles.  It  is  therefore  appropriate  to  call  attention  to 
Hebr.  9  :  5  as  the  nearest  approach  to  a  N.  T.  parallel. 

2  The  occurrence  of  6  'Yi/zto-Tos  in  6  :  35  should  be  noted  as  one  example  of  what 
may  be  instanced  against  the  assertion  of  Soltau,  Fine  Likke,  &c.,  1899,  p.  41  : 
"  Eine  Verwandtschaft  der  Logiaabschnitte  mit  Acta  besteht  nicht."  What  Soltau 
has  called  "  ein  Missgriff  Feine's  "  is  rather  an  evidence  of  keen  perception. 

*  See  Dalman,  Worte  Jesu,  p.  162,  and  Swete,  Comm.,  on  Mark  5  :  7. 

*  For  the  evidence  of  this  intention  see  below.  We  believe  that  the  addition 
Kol  (TO(piav  in  V.  10  to  the  LXX  characterization  of  Joseph  t^wKiv  avr^  X'*P"'  ""^ 
ffo(piay  ivavriov  Zapata  and  (To<pia  'Aiy.  in  v.  22  has  a  similar  motive.  It  is  worth 
noting  in  this  connection  that  it  is  the  Special  Source  of  Luke  which  gives  such 
prominence  to  Jesus'  endowment  with  the  "  wisdom  of  God  "  (cf .  the  endowment 
of  the  Seven,  Acts  6:3;  irX^petj  irytv/xaTos  ttal  (io<plas). 


234  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

significant,  however,  that  XvTpwa-t^  occurs  only  in  Luke  1  : 
68 ;  2  :  38  and  Hebrews  9  :  12,  while  even  Xurpovcrdai,,  aside 
from  Luke  24  :  21  (of  which  more  presently)  and  Xvrpovv 
occur  only  once  each  (Tit.  2  :  14  and  1  Peter  1  :  18)  ?  But 
perhaps  we  might  expect  different  results  with  the  title 
"Saviour,"  and  the  word  "salvation"  (v.  25).  Is  it  not 
rather  surprising  that  neither  Hcor^p  nor  aojTrjpia  occurs  in 
the  non-Lucan  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  save 
once  each  in  John  4  :  22,  42  ?i  But  crcorrip  appears  in 
Luke  1  :  47 ;  2  :  11 ;  Acts  5  :  31  {ap^rjybv  Kal  awrfjpa,  cf . 
Hebr.  2  :  10,  dp^rjyov  Tr]<;  a(OTr)pia<;);  13  :  23;  and  atorrjpia 
in  Luke  1  :  69,  71,  77;  19  :  9;  Acts  4  :  12;  13  :  26,  47; 
16  :  17;  27  :  34,  and  the  synonymous  aooTijpcov  in  Luke 
2  :  30;  3  :  6;  Acts  28  :  28;  but  nowhere  else  save  Ejih. 
6 :  17,  and  there  in  a  LXX  quotation.  Can  it  be  accidental 
that  the  conception  of  Jesus  as  Redeemer  and  Saviour  is 
thus  limited? 

In  V.  52  occurs  a  rare  messianic  title  known  to  us  as  such 
from  Enochs  xxxviii.  2,  6  AUaio'i.  The  only  other  instances  in 
the  New  Testament  are  Acts  3  :  14  and  22  :  14,  both  of 
them  passages  which  are  otherwise  connected  with  our  own. 

But  pass  from  epithets  of  God  and  Christ  to  distinctive 
characterizations  and  other  rare  and  peculiar  expressions. 
Of  the  former  we  have  an  example  in  our  author's  habitual 
endowment  of  his  theocratic  heroes  with  cro(f)ia,  of  which 
more  hereafter  (p.  245).  Of  the  latter  in  the  phrase  avi^r) 
iirl  rr]v  KapBlav^  v.  23,  which  occurs  in  Luke  24  :  38,  else- 
where only  in  the  fragment  from  the  Apocalypse  of  Elias^  1 
Cor.  2  :  9.  But  the  phrase  rjv  he  hvvaro<i  iv  \6yoi<;  koi  epyoc?, 
V.  22,  paralleled  only  in  Luke  24  :  19  (cf.,  however,  Acts  18: 
24),  is  much  more  than  a  mere  facon  de  parler.  It  is,  to 
begin  with,  an  addition  to  the  Scriptural  representation  of 

1  As  an  appellative  ffur-fip  appears  only  in  the  latest  of  the  N.  T.  writings, 
seeming  to  increase  in  frequency  witli  the  lateness  of  date.  In  the  Pastoral 
Epistles  it  appears  five  times  applied  to  God  (1  Tim.  and  Titus),  four  times  to 
Christ  (2  Tim.  and  Titus),  in  Jude  once  (of  God).  The  expression  ffurfjp  rov 
Kofffiov  occurs  but  twice,  John  4  :  22  and  I  John  4  :  14.  In  2  Peter  d  amr^p  rjfiStv 
(five  times)  is  the  habitual  appellative  of  Jesus  Christ. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  235 

Moses,  one  which  goes  to  the  point  of  actual  contradiction 
of  Exodus  4  :  10.  Moses  is  to  be  depicted  as  the  antetype 
of  Christ,  and  to  this  end  must  appear  as  both  a  teacher  and 
a  worker  of  miracles  (cf.  v.  36),  more  especially,  however, 
as  a  "redeemer"  (\vrp(ori]v^  v.  35).  The  reverse  process 
appears  in  Luke  2-1  :  13-32,  where  Jesus  is  to  be  proved  the 
"prophet"  foretold  "in  Moses  and  all  the  prophets"  as 
"like  unto  Moses"  (Deut.  18  :  15).  Accordingly  Jesus  is 
unconsciously  described  as  such  by  the  two  disciples.  He 
was  "  a  prophet  Swuto^  iv  epyw  koI  Xoyw,  and  they  had  hoped 
that  "this  was  he  who  should  redeem  {Xvrpovadai)  Israel." 
When  we  reflect  on  the  rarity  of  the  terras  XvrpcoTij'i,  Xvrpovv, 
XurpouaOat,  and  that  no  New  Testament  writer  before  Luke 
makes  any  use  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ  as  the  alter  Moses^'^ 
the  occurrence  of  this  descriptive  phrase  only  in  Luke  24  : 

19  and  Acts  7  :  22,  shows  its  true  significance. 

After  this  we  need  only  mention  the  remaining  peculiari- 
ties. The  only  other  occurrence  of  iroieiv  iKSUrjcnv,  v.  24,  is 
in  Luke  18  :  7,  8 ;  of  i^coOeiv,  v.  45,  in  Acts  27  :  39 ;  of  irar- 
ptapxn'^-,  Acts  2  :  29 ;  Hebrews  7  :  4.  Vogel  {Zur  Charak- 
teristik  desLukas  nach  Sprache  und  Stil,  p.  63)  finds  a-vyyeveia 
only  in  Luke  1  :  61;  Acts  7  :  3,  14,  though  employed  in 
LXX  (Exod.,  Wisd. ,  2  Mace);  ySpe^o?  occurs  in  Luke  1  : 
41,  44;  2  :  12,  16;  18  :  5;  Acts  7  :  19;  elsewhere  only  in  2 
Timothy  3  :  15 ;  1  Peter  2:2;  e^airoaTeWetv  in  Luke  1:5; 

20  :  10,  11;  Acts  7  :  12;  9  :  30;  11  :  22;  17  :  14;  22  :  21; 
elsewhere  only  in  Galatians  4  :  4,  6 ;  TrpoSoTTj';  in  Luke  6  : 
16;  Acts  7  :  52;  elsewhere  only  2  Timothy  3  :  4;  iv  y3//3Xft), 
with  gen.,  only  Luke  3  :  4;  20  :  42;  Acts  1  :  20;  7  :  42,  and 
Phil.  4  :  3.  Finally  Isaiah  66  :  12  is  quoted  in  Barn.  xvi. 
with  the  same  variation  from  LXX  as  in  Acts  7  :  49  (kuI 
7roio<i  for  rj  Tt'?),  which  leads  Hilgenfeld  (loc.  cit.,  p.  408)  to 
infer  dependence  by  Barnabas,  not,  indeed,  on  Acts  7  :  49, 
but  on  the  source  employed  for  the  speech. 

^  It  is  the  stereotyped  conception  in  the  Clementine  writings,  where  the  stand- 
ing designation  of  Christ  is  "  the  true  Prophet "  with  explicit  reference  to  Deut.  1 9  : 
15,  18  f. 


236  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

What  inferences  may  we  legitimately  draw  from  this  re- 
view of  the  style  and  vocabulary  ?  Certainly  not  derivation 
direct  from  Stephen.  The  stylistic  connection  with  other 
parts  of  Luke-Acts  is  too  unmistakable.  But  neither  can 
we  infer  composition  by  the  Autor  ad  Theophilum.  If  we 
conceive  him  as  the  Gentile  Luke,  the  Hebraistic  thought 
and  phraseology  exclude  the  supposition.  If  we  conceive 
him  as  some  unknown  Christian  of  Jewish  birth,  still  the 
affinities  are  rather  with  special  parts  of  the  work,  where  a 
characteristic  source  appears  to  be  employed,  in  particular  at 
the  beginning  and  end  of  the  gospel  ^  than  with  the  work  as 
a  whole,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  the  doctrinal  standpoint  of 
the  speech,  as  well  as  of  what  survives  of  the  narrative  origi- 
nally belonging  to  it  concerning  the  work  of  the  "Seven 
Evangelists,"  is  more  radical  than  that  of  R. 

Let  us  not  exaggerate  the  importance  of  evidence  from 
language  and  style ;  but,  such  as  it  is,  it  confirms  our  previ- 
ous results.  The  speech  of  Stephen  is  linguistically  of  a 
piece  with  the  first  and  last  chapters  of  Luke,  and  various 
other  passages  peculiar  to  Luke  and  Acts.  It  is  the  type  of 
Hellenistic  Greek  framed  on  the  model  of  the  LXX.^  Fur- 
ther, so  far  as  we  can  trace  affinity  with  other  Christian 
writings,  the  resemblance  is  most  marked  to  those  of  Alex- 
andrian and  Ebionite  type  and  origin,  Ps.- Barnabas,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  the  Clementines. 

1  Soltau  (op.  cit,  p.  38),  though  rejecting  Feine's  theory  of  a  "  precanonical 
Luke  "  combining  a  version  of  the  Login  with  a  special  type  of  the  narrative,  ad- 
mits a  special  relation  between  chapters  1  f.  and  24.  "  Andrerseits  kann  nicht 
verschwiegen  werden  dass  die  Gruudanschauung  von  Lc.  24  :  19  f.  derjenigen  von 
Lc.  l-2entspricht.  Auch  die  Erzaliluugsweise  ist  derjenigen  der  Jugendgeschichte 
verwandt." 

2  For  minuter  characterization  of  this  type  of  Greek  and  its  "  Hebraisms " 
which  are  in  reality  neither  Aramaisms  nor  Hebraisms,  but  Septuagintisms,  see 
Dalman,  Worte  Jesu,  pp.  13-34. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  237 


III 

DOCTRINAL  CONCEPTIONS  OF    THE   SPEECH   AND  THEIR 
LITERARY   AFFINITIES 

If  now  we  were  to  pass  to  a  review  of  cognate  ideas  —  far 
more  significant  than  mere  vocabulary  —  we  should  find  not 
only  the  conception,  already  noted  for  its  distinctive  phrase- 
ology, of  Christ  as  the  "prophet  like  unto  Moses,"  "mighty 
in  deed  and  word,"  "which  should  redeem  Israel,"  connect- 
ing the  speech  with  the  end  of  the  third  gospel  and  the 
Clementines,  but  other  ideas,  equally  fundamental  and  equally 
distinctive,  corroborating  the  indications  of  language  which 
point  to  a  connection  with  the  beginning  of  this  gospel.  But 
space  does  not  permit  detailed  consideration  of  each  concep- 
tion of  the  speech.  A  single  illustration  must  suffice, 
before  we  proceed  to  review  its  treatment  of  the  three  pre- 
rogatives of  the  people  of  God  which  we  have  seen  to  be 
principally  in  debate. 

Kranichfeld  rightly  points  out  that  the  interfusion  of  Gen- 
esis 15  :  13  f.  and  Exodus  3  :  12  (Acts  7  :  6  f.)  is  a  depart- 
ure from  tradition  which  cannot  be  accidental.  It  is  to  be 
understood  by  reference  to  v.  42.  In  the  author's  mind  the 
conception  of  the  promise  of  God  to  the  fathers  as  an  assurance 
of  relations  with  himself  in  the  true  worship,^  has  so  com- 
pletely displaced  that  of  a  special  sacred  territory  to  be  owned 
by  them,  that  he  substitutes  Exodus  3  :  12  for  the  promise 
of  Genesis  15  :  13  f.,  neglecting  the  essence  of  the  transac- 
tion in  verses  7  f.,  18,  so  as  practically  to  substitute  Xarpeia 
for  KX'qpovoixla.     Thus  "the  time  of   the   fulfilment  of  the 

1  That  prerogative  of  Israel  which  Paul  significantly  speaks  of  as  "  the  wor- 
ship "  (Sv  r)  \arpela,  Rom.  9  :  5). 


238  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

promise  "  becomes  that  of  the  deliverance  from  Egypt  and 
institution  of  the  true  -worship  at  Sinai,  to  the  complete 
eclipse  of  the  giving  of  the  land;  correspondingly  the 
stiff -neckedness  and  perversity  of  Israel  bears  fruit,  not  so 
much  in  temporary  exclusion  from  Canaan  as  in  the  substitu- 
tion of  a  Xarpeia  tt}?  aTparlaf  rov  ovpavov  (v.  42),  in  epyoif; 
roiv  %et/?a)y  avrwv,  for  the  promised  worship  of  God.  The 
motive  for  this  becomes  perfectly  intelligible  as  soon  as  the 
polemic  interest  of  the  times,  and  of  the  speech  as  a  whole, 
is  considered.  The  fundamental  questions  are  as  to  the 
KXrjpovofMia  and  the  Xoyta  ^covra.  Israel  points  to  circumci- 
sion as  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  former  (v.  8)  and  to  the  Xarpeia 
instituted  at  Sinai  as  the  sign  of  the  latter.  Our  speaker  (v. 
51)  denies  that  circumcision  was  anything  more  than  a  type 
and  symbol,  and  is  equally  free  in  his  attitude  toward  the 
Sinai  tic  ritual  (v.  42  f.).  But  he  does  not  stand  alone  in  his 
treatment  of  the  promise,  Exodus  3  :  12.  This  overshadow- 
ing of  the  territorial  conception  of  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, by  one  which  cuts  loose  entirely  from  local  relations  and 
considers  deliverance  from  the  oppressor  for  the  sake  of  the 
true  worship  to  be  the  real  content  of  the  promise,  is  that  of 
Luke  1  :  73-75,  where  "the  oath  which  God  sware  to  Abra- 
ham our  father"  (Gen.  15  :  7  ff.)  is  not  the  KXrjpovofMia,  but 
"  that  we,  being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  all  our  enemies 
should  serve  him  (Xarpeveiv  avroi)  in  holiness  and  righteous- 
ness before  him  all  our  days."  Now  this  peculiar  tendency 
does  not  belong  to  all  types  of  early  Christian  thought.  The 
effort  to  spiritualize  the  promise  to  Abraham  from  KXrjpovofMia 
to  Xarpeia,  from  a  territorial  to  a  religious  sense,  is  character- 
istic of  the  Alexandrian  writers,  Hebrews,  and  Barnabas. 
The  Pauline  interpretation,  as  we  shall  see,  takes  a  different 
direction. 

With  this  single  illustration  of  the  relationship  of  individ- 
ual ideas  of  the  speech  we  turn  to  a  consideration  of  its 
general  course  of  thought,  confining  ourselves  to  incidental 
interpretation. 

Section  1  of  the  speech  deals  in  its  first  subdivision  ([a] 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  239 

r=  vv.  2-8)  with  the  prophetic  institution  of  the  first  or 
Abrahamic  period,  the  KXrjpovo/xia  or  inheritance  of  the  holy 
land;  or  as  it  is  designated  in  v.  8,  "the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision." But  by  circumcision,  as  appears  from  v.  51, 
the  speaker,  after  the  example  and  in  the  hmguage  of  the 
prophets,  understands  a  rite  of  value  only  for  its  symbolism, 
which  is  unveiling  —  preparedness  of  heart  and  ears  for 
divine  instruction.  But  beyond  and  above  this  the  content 
of  the  covenant,  the  thing  promised,  is  not  the  Pauline 
blessedness  of  the  Gentiles  (Gal.  3:8;  Rom.  4  :  16  f.,  rest- 
ing on  Gen.  12  :  3),  employed  in  Acts  3  :  25.  Our  author 
goes  rather  to  Gen.  15  :  7-21 ;  only,  instead  of  finding  there 
the  territorial  sense,  ^  he  combines  Genesis  15  :  14,  as  we 
have  seen,  by  a  curious  and  significant  anticipation,  with 
Exodus  3  :  12,  to  read  from  it  a  promise  of  God  to  give 
deliverance  and  the  true  Xarpeta.  The  oath  of  God  is  to 
execute  judgment  for  the  seed  of  Abraham  against  their 
oppressors,  bring  them  forth  from  bondage,  and  cause  them 
to  serve  him.  Persistent  and  reiterated  emphasis  is  placed 
upon  the  fact  that  the  promise  was  not  fulfilled  in  the  ex- 
ternal sense. 2  When  God  had  removed  Abraham  into  the 
land  after  his  father's  death,  "he  gave  him  none  inheritance 
in  it,  no,  not  so  much  as  to  set  his  foot  on,"  but  promised  it 
to  a  certain  "  seed  "  to  be  given  him,  whose  special  "  spirit- 
ual" character  (cf.  Rom.  9  :  7-9),  as  well  as  the  "faith"  of 
Abraham  (cf.  Rom.  4  :  19-22),  is  suggested  in  the  reminder 
that  "as  yet  he  had  no  child."  The  conclusion  of  the  sec- 
tion is  (v.  16)  that  not  an  inch  of  soil  in  Canaan  was  given 
to  any  of  the  patriarchs  save  a  burial-place,  and  even  that 
in  despised  Samaria,  which  was  not  given,  but  "  bought  with 

^  Possibly  the  disappearance  of  the  territorial  sense  was  made  easier  for  Hellen- 
istic Jews  by  the  LXX  renderinsj  ^v  &v  coi  Sel^co,  "  the  land,  wherever  it  be,  that  I 
shall  show  tliee."  The  point  that  Abram  "  knew  not  whither  he  went  "  is  em- 
phasized in  Hebr.  11:8.  The  fact  that  the  patriarchs  were  "  strangers  and  sojourn- 
ers, "  and  as  such  types  of  the  Christian  people  of  God,  is  emphasized  both  in  Hebr. 
11:9,  13-16,  and  here,  vv.  6,  29. 

2  Meyer,  Comm.,  ad  loc,  "  He  gave  not  .  .  .  and  promised."  So  in  Hebr.  11  :  13 
the  fact  is  emphasized  that  the  inheritance  was  not  received. 


240  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

a  price. "  The  Abrahamic  Inheritance,  we  are  to  infer,  was 
not  so  much  a  particular  land,  but  "freedom  to  worship 
God."  This  was  first  made  clear  to  the  patriarch  himself. 
God  withheld  the  land  —  and  gave  a  larger  promise. 

Where  then  do  we  find  the  parallels  to  this  characteristic 
interpretation  of  the  KXrjpovofMia,  which  the  speaker  opposes 
to  that  of  the  "  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears  "  ? 

Paulinism  does  not  by  any  means  neglect  to  spiritualize 
the  conception  of  the  Abrahamic  KkTjpovo^iLa ;  but  how  ?  — 
Not  by  connecting  the  great  story  of  God's  act  of  cession 
of  the  land.  Genesis  15  :  7-21,  and  its  modification  in  the 
attached  promise  of  deliverance  from  Egypt,  forward  with 
Exodus  3  :  1-12,  but  backward  with  Genesis  12  :  3  and 
Genesis  1  :  26-28.  The  KXrjpovofila  ceases  to  be  particular- 
istic by  becoming  cosmic.  Abraham  becomes  "heir  of  the 
world"  (Rom.  4  :  13).  His  "seed,"  the  "many  nations"  of 
Genesis  12  :  3,  are  all,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  are  "of 
faith,"  and  as  such  are  "blessed  with  faithful  Abraham" 
(Gal.  3  :  7-9;  Rom.  4  :  16-18).  More  particularly  it  is  in 
the  person  of  the  "one  new  man"  in  whom  the  redeemed 
race  is  federated,  as  the  lost  race  had  been  federated,  or 
subsumed,  in  Adam,  that  this  inheriting  of  the  world  is  to 
be  realized.  "  He  saith  not  '  seeds  '  as  of  many,  but  as  of 
one,  *  and  to  thy  seed,'  which  is  Christ"  (Gal.  3  :  16,  28,  29; 
cf.  Eph.  2  :  15);  so  that  one  may  say  equally  that  God 
"made  Abraham  heir  of  the  world"  (Rom.  4  :  13),  that  he 
"appointed  his  Son  heir  of  all  things  "(Heb.  1  :  2),  and  may 
promise  the  same  inheritance  "to  him  that  overcometh " 
(Rev.  21  :  7).  For  we  too  are  "heirs  of  God  "  only  as  being 
"joint-heirs  with  Christ"  (Rom.  8  :  17).  God  has  created  in 
him  (in  his  spiritual  second  creation,  2  Cor.  4  :  6)  of  the 
twain,  Jew  and  Gentile,  "one  new  man"  (Eph.  2  :  15). 
The  heir  is  the  Second  Adam,  "one  new  man,"  and  yet  not 
one,  but  Messiah  and  his  people  together.  The  ' Aya-TrrjToi; 
and  ayairrjTOi,  'Ek\€Kt6<;  and  eKkeKToi  are  heirs  together, 
"even  as  he  chose  us  in  him  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world :  having  in  love  foreordained  us  in  the  Beloved  .  .  . 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  241 

according  to  his  good  pleasure  which  he  purposed  in  him  unto 
a  dispensation  of  the  fuhiess  of  the  ages,  to  make  Christ  the 
head  (avaKe4)a\aidoaaa$ac)  of  all  things,  the  things  in  the 
heavens,  and  the  things  on  the  earth,  in  whom  we  also  were 
made  heirs  {eKXr^pdoOrjixev)  and  were  sealed  with  the  promised 
Holy  Spirit  as  an  earnest  of  our  inheritance  "  (KXrjpovofiLa) 
(Eph.  1  :  3-14,  abridged).  But  if  the  life-giving  Spirit  is 
the  appa/3oiv  of  our  inheritance,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
to  Paul  the  inheritance  itself  was  of  an  exclusively  spiritual 
character.  Quite  the  contrary.  He  proceeds  at  once  to 
explain  its  character.  It  is  "dominion"  (/cara/cwp levcri?)  over 
the  entire  creation  of  God,  "things  visible  and  invisible, 
things  in  heaven  and  on  earth,"  personal,  semi-personal,  and 
impersonal  (Eph.  1  :  10,  20-23;  Col.  1  :  16-20).  Messiah 
and  his  people  —  in  Christian  phrase,  "  Christ  and  the  church  " 
—  not  separately  but  in  their  united  capacity,  are  to  be  in  the 
fullest  and  completest  sense  "  lords  "  over  the  entire  creation 
of  God.  The  creation  is  their  inheritance,  and  is  waiting  for 
them,  waiting  impatiently  under  the  dominion  of  "  vanity  " 
(^fjbaraioTTjTc;  cf.  p^{,  )nr)  of  false  gods,  Sai/xove^  made  objects 
of  worship,  e.  g.,  Jer.  14  :  22),  till  the  sons  who  are  the  real 
heirs  are  made  manifest  (Rom.  8  :  19-23).  When  the  time  of 
tutelage  is  over  and  the  day  of  adoption  predetermined  by  the 
Father  is  come,  these  mere  "stewards  and  governors,"  which, 
though  worshipped  among  the  heathen  as  deities,  "are  by 
nature  no  gods  "  (Gal.  4  :  8),  will  then  be  subjected  under 
the  dominion  of  the  heir.  This  is  "the  mystery  of  the 
Creator's  will,  hid  till  now  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world"  (Eph.  1  :  9;  3  :  3-5;  Rom.  16  :  25)  even  from  angels 
(Eph.  3  :  9  f. ;  1  Peter  1  :  12),  who,  according  to  Slav. 
Unoch,  are  ignorant  of  the  mystery  of  their  origin,  but  re- 
vealed in  the  manifestation  of  the  Second  Adam  as  Son  and 
Heir  of  God.  For  the  purposes  of  discipline  it  pleased  God, 
in  the  pre-messianic  dispensation  of  law,  to  put  all,  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles,  under  the  mentorship  of  the  angelic  aroc- 
X^ia  Tov  koct/jlou.^    But  while  for  a  time   the  ajotx^Ca  have 

'  See  Deissmann,  s.  v.  "  Elements,"  in  Encycl.  Biblica. 
16 


242  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

a  delegated  authority  over  the  children  for  their  conduct 
(iracSaycoyoi)  and  even  (as  eirLTpoiroL  and  oIkovo/xoi)  control 
their  property,  once  the  Heir  is  come  he  is  seen  to  he  the 
true  possessor  of  both  the  power  and  the  riches.  They  are 
"weak"  and  "beggarly"  (GaL  3  :  24-26;  4  :  1-11);  the 
universe  is  his,  and  he  will  judge  their  administration  of 
his  estate  (1  Cor.  6  :  2,  3;  cf.  Enoch  Ixxxix.  59;  25,  the 
judgment  of  the  70  shepherds,  i.  e.,  angelic  guardians  of 
Israel,   by  Messiah).  ^ 

This  conception  of  the  KXijpovo/Mia  is  fundamental  with 
Paul.  It  is  the  basis  of  his  defence  against  the  Judaistic 
stoicheiolatry  and  "  worship  of  the  angels  "  in  the  churches 
of  the  Lycus  valley.  It  is  the  foundation  stone  of  his  cos- 
mology and  eschatology.  In  harmony  with  all  the  apocalyp- 
tic writers,  the  two  are  to  him  inseparable.  A  Christ  who 
does  not  bring  to  fulfilment  the  declared  purpose  of  God  in 
creation.  Genesis  1  :  28,  irk'qpoiaare  rrjv  yqv,  koI  KaraKupic- 
"OoraTe  avrrji^,  koI  dp-y^ere  tmv  l')(9vu)V  t?}?  6a\dTrr]<;,  koL  tmv 
Trereivcjv  rov  ovpavov,  Ktti  irdvTcav  T&v  t(TT]vS>v  would  be  to 
Paul  no  Messiah  at  all.  He  would  not  only  disappoint  the 
just  expectations  of  Israel,  based  for  centuries  on  the  promise 
of  God  (Gen.  1  :  26-28;  Ps.  8  :  6)  and  re-echoed  in  every 
apocalyptic  writer, ^  but  he  would  be  unable  to  wrest  the 

1  "  And  He  called  70  shcplicrds  and  put  away  those  sheep  (Israel)  that  they 
might  pasture  them  ....  And  he  spake  to  tliat  man  who  wrote  before  Him,  who 
was  one  of  the  seven  white  ones,  and  said  to  him,  '  Take  those  70  sliepherds  to 
whom  I  delivered  the  sheep,  and  who,  taking  them  on  their  own  authority,  slew 
more  than  I  commanded  them.  And  behold  they  were  all  bound,  I  saw,  and  they 
all  stood  before  Him.  And  the  judgment  was  held  first  over  the  stars  (the  angels 
who  sinned  in  the  days  of  Noah,  Gen.  6:3),  and  they  were  judged  and  found  guilty 
and  went  to  the  place  of  condemnation,  and  they  were  cast  into  an  aby.ss,  full  of 
fire  and  flaming,  and  full  of  pillars  of  fire.  And  tliose  70  shepherds  (tlie  angelic 
guardians  of  Israel)  were  judged  and  found  guilty  and  likewise  cast  into  that  fiery 
abyss."  Scholars  are  now  agreed  that  tlie  70  shepherds  are  not  human,  but  an- 
gelic.    See  the  note  of  R.  H.  Cliarles'  edition,  ad  loc. 

2  See,  e.  g  ,  Assumptio  Monix,  1  :  12-14  (God  created  the  world  on  behalf  of  his 
people  and  revealed  this  final  cause  to  Moses) ;  Apnr.  of  Barurh,  xiv.  18  f. ;  xv.  7  ; 
xxi.  24.  II  Esdras  6  :  .55,  59  is  striking :  "  0  Lord,  thou  hast  said  tli.it  for  our  sakes 
thou  madest  this  world.  ...  If  the  world  now  be  made  for  our  sakes,  wliy  do  we 
Hot  possess  for  au  inheritance  our  world  ?    How  long  shall  this  endure  ?  "    Cf.  II 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  243 

"  dominion  "  from  the  stewards  and  governors,  the  apxat  and 
e^ovcrtai,  the  Bvvafiei<;  koI  KupLOTTjre'i,  koX  iravTa  ovofiara  ovo- 
fjba^ofxeva  ov  fiovov  iv  tw  alcovt  tovto),  aXXa  koX  iv  tu>  fieWovri. 
Man  was  made  to  "have  dominion  over  the  works  of  God's 
hands."  The  end  will  come  only  when  in  the  person  of  the 
second  Adam  he  shall  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to 
God,  even  the  Father,  when  he  shall  have  put  down  iraa-av 
ap-)(r]v  KoX  irdaav  i^ovalav  Koi  ^vvajxtv.  "  For  the  Christ  must 
reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last 
enemy  that  shall  be  put  down  is  death."  The  ground  ex- 
pressly cited  for  this  unshakable  confidence  is  Psalm  8:6  — 
"  For  '  he  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet. '  But  when  he 
saith.  All  things  are  put  under  him,  it  is  manifest  that  he 
is  excepted  who  did  put  all  things  under  him.  And  when 
all  things  are  subdued  under  him  then  the  Son  also  himself 
shall  be  subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him, 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all"  (1  Cor.  15  :  24-28). i 

Paul's  conception  of  the  KXrjpovo/jbta  as  inclusive  of  lord- 
ship over  the  creation  and  its  angelic  administrators  does  not 
differ  a  hair's  breadth  from  that  of  the  messianic  Pharisaism 
of  his  time,  save  that  to  him  Jesus  is  that  Second  Adam  or 
"Son  of  Man"  of  Psalm  8  :  4-8,  to  whom  for  his  obedience 
God  has  given  the  name  which  is  above  every  name  —  the 
name  Kvpco<;  'rravroKparcop  —  that  to  him  every  knee  should 
bow.  Thus  the  essential,  fundamentally  distinctive  feature 
of  this  Palestinian,  apocalyptic  idea  of  the  K\r]povo/xla,  is 
that  it  is  cosmological.  The  promise  to  Abraham  is  univer- 
salized by  being  carried  back  and  brought  into  connection 
with  the  story  of  the  creation  and  fall.  It  becomes  the  anti- 
dote to  the  curse  by  which  evil  and  death  came  into  the 
world  (Gen.  2-3),  restoring  the  primal  creation  as  contem- 

Esdras  7  :  11 ;  8  : 1,  44 ;  9  :  13.  la  Rabbinic  literature  the  world  is  created  on  ac- 
count of  Abraham,  Yalk.  I.  766.  In  Christian  apocalypse  "  he  that  overconieth  " 
becomes  "  heir  of  all  things,"  Rev.  21 :  5-7.  For  the  doctrine  of  the  creation  of 
the  world  "  for  the  Church  "  in  Hermas  and  later  writers  see  below. 

1  For  the  importance  attached  in  later  times  to  this  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
"  lordship  "  (kvpi6tt]s)  of  Christ  se3  the  denunciations  of  Jude  4,  8,  25  and  2  Peter 
2: 10,  against  those  who  despise  and  rail  at  "  lordship." 


244  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

plated  in  Genesis  1.  In  its  Christian  form  it  takes  in 
Genesis  15  :  6  and  12  :  3  on  the  way,  and  includes  as 
beneficiaries  of  the  inheritance  not  only  "Israel,"  or  "the 
righteous  in  Israel,"  or  the  "People  of  God"  (meaning 
Israel  and  proselytes),  but  "them  that  are  of  faith,"  "the 
Israel  of  God,"  "the  Church,"  or  "Christ  and  the  Church," 
"the  redemption  of  God's  own  possession."  ^ 

But  we  have  already  seen  that  this  was  not  the  only  early 
Christian  manner  of  spiritualizing  the  hope  of  the  KXrjpovofjiia. 
It  is  not  that  of  the  speech  of  Stephen.  The  Abrahamic  in- 
heritance here  is  connected,  not  backward  with  Genesis  1-8, 
but  forward  with  the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  Genesis 
15  :  7  ff.  is  amalgamated  with  Exodus  3  :  1  ff.  Everything 
possible  is  done  to  detach  the  promise  from  its  material 
content.  In  the  fundamental  passage  (Gen.  15  :  7-21)  the 
attention  is  concentrated  on  vv.  13-16  (a  later  interpola- 
tion in  Gen.  15  :  7-21,  according  to  critics),  to  the  ignoring 
of  7-12,  17  ff.,  which  constitute  the  heart  of  the  story. 
Thus  the  conception  of  the  prerogative  of  the  K\r]povo/u,ia 
tends  to  merge  in,  or  actually  becomes  indistinguishable 
from  that  of  the  XaTpela.  The  place  is  nothing,  the 
deliverance  from  oppression  and  bringing  into  relations  of 
pure  and  unhindered  "  worship "  is  everything. 

Now  this  conception  of  "  God's  holy  covenant,"  as  we  have 
seen,  does  not  stand  alone  in  Acts  7  :  7,  but  is  distinctively 
that  of  Luke  1  :  71-75.  It  stands  in  striking  contrast 
to  the  Pauline,  which  develops  exclusively  in  an  opposite 
direction.  In  view  of  its  spiritualizing  character,  no  less 
than  its  affinities  of  phraseology  and  style,  we  are  justified 
in  applying  to  it  the  name  Alexandrian.  The  essential  dif- 
ference of  this  mode  of  conception  of  the  KXrjpovo/xla  from 
the  Pauline  lies  in  its  mode  of  escape  from  the  particularism 

1  The  pre-Christian  apocalyptic  writers  meet  the  question  of  fitness  for  the 
K\7)povoixia  by  restricting  it  to  the  righteous  remnant  rather  than  all  Israel.  See 
Apoc.  of  Baruch,  xvi.  18  f.  ;  xv.  7  ;  xxi.  24,  and  cf.  Charles'  comment,  Assumption  of 
Moses,  i.  12-14.  In  the  early  Christian  writers  the  doctrine  takes  the  form  "  God 
created  the  world  on  behalf  of  the  Church  "  (Hermas,  Vis.,  ii,  4  :  1  ;  cf.  Mand. 
xii.  4  ;  Justin,  Apol.  i.  10 ;  ii.  4  :  5 ;  Dial.  xli.  Irenaeus,  Her.,  v.  29  : 1,  &c.). 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  245 

of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Pauline  was  cosmological ;  this 
is  idealistic.  The  believer  retreats  from  that  outer  world 
which  the  Palestinian  apocalyptist  would  boldly  subjugate, 
into  the  inner,  spiritual  realm.  As  Paulinism  goes  back  to 
Pharisaic  and  Apocalyptic  thought,  this  other  reverts  to 
pre-Christian  Alexandrianism,  whose  essential  and  character- 
istic trait  is  idealism.  The  Alexandrian-Christian's  answer 
to  Philo's  question,  Who  is  the  K\7]pov6ixo<i  of  the  things  of 
God?  in  some  forms  is  almost  identical  with  Philo's,  viz.: 
The  wise  man  who  controls  his  own  faculties  and  desires ;  ^ 
in  all  it  tends  to  lose  terrestrial  footing.  It  is  in  the  Lucan 
form  the  same  as  the  answer  of  Hebrews,  whose  author  rea- 
sons along  the  same  lines.  The  inheritance  of  Abraham 
cannot  have  been  an  earthly  country  (as  the  uncircumcised 
in  heart  and  ears  maintain),  for  even  in  the  land  of  promise 
he  dwelt  in  tents  with  Isaac  and  Jacob,  the  heirs  with  him 
of  the  same  promise,  as  a  stranger  and  sojourner;  for  he 
was  looking  for  the  city  which  hath  the  foundations,  whose 
builder  and  maker  is  God.  He  and  his  died  in  faith,  not 
having  received  the  promises,  but  having  seen  and  greeted 
them  from  afar.  For  they  were  indeed  seeking  a  country  of 
their  own,  but  a  better  country,  that  is  a  heavenly;  and  for 
this  reason  God  was  not  ashamed  to  be  called  the  God  of 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  because  there  is  no  real  particu- 
larism where  the  country  sought  is  the  heavenly,  and  in  this 
case  the  city  sought  was  one  prepared  of  God. 

The  course  of  reasoning  is  similar  when  in  Hebrews  3  : 
7  to  4  :  11  the  author  (who  here  as  elsewhere  is  followed  by 
Barnabas')  reasons  from  Psalm  95  :  7-11  that  the  "  rest " 
(jcardiTava-i';')  set  before  Moses  (Exod.  33  :  14)  and  Israel 
(Num.  14  :  21-23)  in  the  wilderness  was  not  that  which 
Joshua  gave  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  but  that  of  Genesis  2  : 

1  Cf.  Clem.  Recogn.,  i.  37.  All  this  (Moses'  appointment  of  "a  place  in  which 
alone  it  should  be  lawful  to  them  to  sacrifice  to  God  ")  was  arranged  with  this 
view,  that  when  the  fitting  time  should  come,  and  they  should  learn  by  means  of 
the  Prophet  (Deut.  18:15  has  just  been  referred  to)  that  God  desires  mercy  and  not 
sacrifice,  they  might  see  Him  who  should  teach  them  that  the  place  chosen  of  God, 
in  which  it  was  suitable  that  victims  should  be  offered  to  God,  is  his  Wisdom." 


246  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

2,  the  eternal  sabbatic  rest  of  God  in  the  perfected  creation. 
The  promise  was  not  realized  in  the  literal  sense,  therefore 
the  true  sense  was  the  inner  or  spiritual.  It  was  discerned 
by  the  ancient  worthies  through  "faith,"  i.e.,  the  insight 
which  "gives  substance  to  these  hoped-for  things,  and  puts 
to  the  test  of  action  the  things  not  seen."  ^ 

Both  Alexandrian  and  Pauline  ideas  are  carried  out  more 
emphatically,  and  similarly  intermingled  in  Ps. -Barnabas. 
True,  this  Alexandrian  writer  flounders  about  among  ideas 
much  too  large  for  him,  borrowed  partly  from  Hebrews, 
partly  from  a  source  at  least  connected  with  Acts  7.  But 
his  most  salient  characteristic  is  his  marked  effort  to  get 
away  from  the  local  sense  of  the  KXrjpovofila.  In  his  view 
both  Genesis  1 :  26  to  2  :  3  and  Exodus  3  :  14  look  to  the 
messianic  Sabbath,  which  is  the  Inheritance.  The  land  (7^) 
"flowing  with  milk  and  honey,"  when  gnosis  is  applied  — 
"for  the  Lord  established  among  us  wisdom  and  understand- 
ing of  his  secret  things  "  —  is  seen  to  be  not  at  all  a  reference 
to  Canaan  but  to  the  redeemed  creation.  It  is  "a  parable 
concerning  the  Lord."  "In  reference  to  the  new  creation 
of  man  in  the  likeness  of  Christ  the  prophet  (Moses) 
preached,  Enter  into  an  earth  (et?  yfjv,  omitting  the  article) 
flowing  with  milk  and  honey,  and  be  lords  over  it  (Exod.  3  : 
14;  Gen.  1  :  27).  ^  We  therefore  are  they  whom  he  brought 
into  the  good  earth.  What,  then,  is  the  milk  and  honey?  — 
The  promise  and  the  word  by  which  we  are  nourished  to  live 
and  be  lords  of  the  earth.  "^ 

These  examples  from  Hebrews  and  Barnabas  must  suffice 
to  illustrate  the  Alexandrian  method  of  universalizing  the 
conception  of  the  KXrjpovo/xia.     It  is  universalized,  but  not 

1  In  1  :  2  ;  2  :  5-9,  wliere  Ps.  8  :  4  is  interpreted  as  applying  to  Christ's  dominion 
over  the  world  in  fulfilment  of  Gen.  1  :  28,  onr  author  manifestly  rests  on  a  Pauline 
basis  (of.  1  Cor.  1.5  ;  27  f.),  but  the  Alexandrianism  of  Hebrews  is  quite  as  marked 
as  its  Paulinism. 

2  Cf.  this  intermingling  of  Gen.  1  :  27  and  Exod.  3  :  14  with  that  of  Gen.  15  :  14 
and  Exod.  3 :  12  in  Acts  7  :  7. 

3  Compare  with  this  the  modern  expression  rationalizing  the  older  view  of 
the  hereafter :  "  Heaven  is  not  a  place  but  a  condition." 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  247 

as  having  the  k6o-ij,o<;  as  its  content,  except  where  the  influ- 
ence of  Paul  is  unmistakable.  It  escapes  the  bondage  of 
Jewish  particularism  by  spiritualizing  the  sense.  The  Kkripo- 
vo/jita  is  essentially  a  condition  of  the  soul  in  relation  to  God. 
Stephen,  Hebrews,  and  Barnabas  are  all  agreed  that  it  must 
be  understood  TV'7rcKco<;  of  the  Messianic  Age,  and  they  appeal 
to  history  in  proof  that  no  literal  fulfilment  was  ever  given. 
In  Luke  1  :  73-75 ;  Acts  7 :  2-7  we  have  even  a  substitution 
of  the  true  Xarpela  as  its  essential  content. 

[b]  But  it  is  also  characteristic  of  the  speech  no  less  than 
of  Hebrews,  that  it  considers  the  theocratic  characters  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  types  of  Christ,  though  only  in  the  case 
of  Moses  is  this  fully  developed.  In  the  patriarchal  period 
it  is  of  course  the  story  of  Joseph  which  foreshadows  that  of 
the  Messianic  Deliverer.  Hence  we  have  in  the  latter  half 
of  §  1  (vv.  9-16)  a  rehearsal  of  how  Joseph  was  rejected  by 
his  jealous  brethren  and  sold  into  Egypt,  but  was  made  by 
God  the  means  of  their  deliverance.  This  mention  of  the 
patriarchs'  treatment  of  Joseph,  the  one  "with  whom  God 
was,  delivering  him  out  of  all  his  afflictions  and  giving  him 
favour  and  wisdom  "  (xdpLv  koI  (TO(f}iav,  cf.  Luke  2 :  40,  52, 
Tr\7]pov/ii€vo<i  aocf}la<;,  koI  x^P^^  Oeov  rjv  lir  avrov  . 
irpoeKOTrrev  ry  aocf)ca  .  .  .  Kal  x^piri.  Also  Acts  6 :  3  irXtjpet^; 
TTvevfiaTO^  Kal  cro(f)La<;  and  10,  rfj  aocjiio,  Kal  tm  Trvev/xart)  is 
enough  to  suggest  in  connection  with  vv.  25-29,  39-43, 
51-53,  the  author's  idea  of  why  the  promise  was  deferred 
four  hundred  years.  For  the  motive  attributed  to  Joseph's 
brethren  (cf.  vv.  27  f.)  is  also  characteristic.  Like  Jesus, 
Joseph  was  delivered  up  to  the  Gentiles  by  his  brethren,  to 
whom  he  came  as  prophet  and  king  (^/SaacXevaea,  Gen. 
37  :  5-11,  LXX.)  Their  motive  was  ^i/Xo?  (Gen.  37  :  11, 
Acts  7  :  9),  the  characteristic  fault  of  the  unbelieving  Jews 
in  Acts  (5  :  17;  13  :  45;  17  :  5)  and  Clement  of  Rome  (cc. 
iv-vi.).^ 

1  The  term  appears  also  in  James  3 :  14,  16  ;  4:2  as  a  fault.  Elsewhere  it 
appears  in  this  sense  only  in  the  Pauline  epistles.  Even  the  "  envy  "  of  the  chief 
priests  who  deliver  up  Jesus  is  described  by  another  term  {(p96uos,  Matt.  27  :  18; 
Mark.  15  :  10). 


248  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

But  the  divine  endowment  of  Joseph  with  "wisdom  and 
favor,"  and  the  presence  of  God  with  him  as  against  the 
^fjXo'i  of  his  brethren  is  not  all  which  suggests  that  the  por- 
trait is  drawn  TuwiKm.  Pains  are  taken  to  distinguish  a 
first  and  second  encounter  of  Joseph  and  his  brethren.  It 
was  only  "  at  the  second  time  "  that  Joseph  was  made  known 
unto  his  brethren,  and  became  their  deliverer  (7  :  13).  This 
might  easily  pass  as  mere  accident,  had  we  not  immediately 
after  a  similar  distinction  in  the  portrayal  of  the  career  of 
Moses,  where  the  first  and  second  coming  to  "  his  brethren  " 
is  certainly  to  be  understood  ruTrt/cw?,  and  perhaps  even  the 
forty  years,  as  corresponding  to  the  forty  years  of  Israel's 
obduracy  between  the  first  and  second  coming  of  Jesus  (cf. 
Heb.  3  :  17).  Our  author  sees  in  both  a  foreshadowing  of 
his  own  age.  Jesus  has  been  rejected;  presented  now  a 
first  time  to  his  brethren  he  is  not  recognized  as  "  ruler  and 
deliverer,"  but  has  been  withdrawn  into  heaven.  But  from 
thence  he  must  appear  a  "second  time  to  them  that  wait  for 
him  unto  salvation  "  (Heb.  9  :  28). i 

2.  [a]  In  the  review  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation  the  order 
of  treatment  is  reversed.  The  typological  significance  of  the 
redemptive  personality  occupies  the  author's  attention  before 
that  of  the  institution.  That  our  author  is  here  approaching 
the  heart  of  his  argument  is  clearly  indicated  by  the  transi- 
tion verse  7  :  17,  "  But  proportionately  as  the  time  of  the 
promise  which  God  promised  to  Abraham  was  drawing  nigh 
the  people  increased  and  multiplied  in  Eygpt."  Were  it 
possible  here  to  be  blind  to  his  conception  of  "  the  promise  " 
and  its  content,  verses  35-38,  with  their  five-times -repeated 
emphatic  ovto^,  make  sure  that  none  shall  mistake  the  por- 
trait of  Christ  in  that  of  INIoses.  Every  trait  is  made  to 
suggest  the  great  messianic  passage  quoted  from  the  Law 
(Deut.  18  :  15,  18  f.),  "A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  God  raise 

1  Cf.  the  rabbinic  doctrine  of  tlic  withdrawal  of  Messiah  {Pesikta  496)  •  "  Mes- 
siah, like  Moses,  will  first  appear,  then  be  withdrawn  45  days  (45  instead  of  40, 
the  number  of  years  of  Moses'  withdrawal  ou  account  of  Dan.  9  :  26).  See  below 
p.  251,  note  4. 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  249 

up  unto  you  of  your  brethren  like  unto  me.  To  him  shall  ye 
hearken  in  all  things,"  a  passage  undoubtedly  in  our  author's 
mind  in  Luke  24  :  27,  44,  but  nowhere  employed  in  any 
earlier  writing.  The  doctrine  of  Messiah  as  the  alter  Moses, 
"that  prophet,"  is  subsequently  alluded  to  in  John  1  :  21 
(4  :  25?);  5  :  46;  6  :  14,i  and  fully  developed  in  Acts  3  :  19- 
26,  where  the  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  is  that  Messiah 
first  appears  as  a  prophet  raised  up  by  God  from  among  his 
brethren  of  Israel,  to  turn  them  to  repentance  in  preparation 
for  the  great  and  terrible  Day  of  Jehovah  (a  function  else- 
where assigned  to  Elias,  or  Moses  and  Elias).  After  he  has 
thus  been  sent  to  Israel  a  first  time,  to  bless  them  in  turning 
away  every  one  of  them  from  their  iniquities,  and  has  after- 
wards been  preached  to  the  Gentiles,  he  will  be  sent  a  sec- 
ond time  as  the  appointed  Christ  (3  :  20);  for  until  this  time 
of  a7roKardaracrL<;  iravrtov  the  heavens  must  receive  him.^ 
But  the  significant  thing  is  that,  aside  from  these  passages 
and  the  possible  exception  soon  to  be  discussed  of  Matthew 
2  :  20,  there  is  no  trace  in  the  New  Testament  of  this  treat- 
ment of  Moses  as  a  type  of  Christ  save  in  Hebrews  3:  1-6.^ 
It  is  in  the  Clementine  literature,  as  already  noted,  that  "the 
true  Prophet,"  or  "the  Prophet,"  becomes  the  stereotyped 

1  The  fourth  gospel  has  consideration  for  the  Alexandrian  ideas  apparent  in 
our  sources  in  other  instances.     See  above,  p.  222,  note. 

2  A  tracing  of  the  relation  of  Acts  3  to  Luke  1  f.  and  24  has  only  indirect  con- 
nection with  our  theme  through  the  apparent  relationship  of  Acts  3  to  Acts  7 ; 
but  one  maybe  permitted  to  suggest  a  comparison  of  Acts  3  :  21  with  Luke  1  :  70 
and  3:18  with  Luke  24  :  26  f. 

^  The  passage  is  exceedingly  obscure,  but  may  be  elucidated  with  the  help  of 
Barn.  viii.  as  follows  :  —  The  description  (Num.  12  :  7)  of  Moses'  dealing  with  Israel 
in  the  Exodus  as  faithfulness  "  in  all  God's  house  "  is  seized  upon  as  a  point  of 
comparison  for  Jesus'  faithfulness  to  God  in  building  the  house,  viz.,  us,  God's 
people  in  whom  he  dwells.  Jesus  thus  appears  not  only  as  the  new  Redeemer, 
greater  than  Moses  by  as  much  as  the  builder  is  greater  than  the  steward,  but  as 
the  new  Creator,  for  the  new  creation  of  God  is  not  the  universe,  his  "  house  "  in 
the  external  sense,  but  his  people  in  whom  he  dwells.  Cf.  Matt.  16: 18  in  the 
light  of  the  rabbinic  parable  cited  at  end  of  Chase's  art.,  "  Peter,  First  Epistle 
of"  in  Cheyne's  Encycl.  Bibl.  from  Yalkuth,  where  the  Creator,  seeking  a  founda- 
tion on  which  to  build  his  house,  says,  '  I  have  found  Abraham,  the  rock  on 
which  to  build.'     See  also  Barn.  viii. 


250  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

designation  of  Christ,  even  in  his  pre-existent  activity.  In 
the  same  connection  as  Acts  7  :  37,  viz.,  between  the  apos- 
tasy of  Israel  at  Sinai  with  the  consequent  institution  of  the 
sacrificial  system,  and  the  institution  of  the  "place  in  which 
alone  it  should  be  lawful  for  them  to  sacrifice,"  Moses'  pre- 
diction is  thus  referred  to  (^Clem.  Recogn.  I,  36):  "He  said 
himself,  '  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  unto  you, 
whom  ye  shall  hear  even  as  myself,  according  to  all  things 
which  he  shall  say  to  you.  Whosoever  shall  not  hearken  to 
that  prophet  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people. '  "  ^ 

So  with  the  speech  of  Stephen.  The  great  figure  of  Moses 
is  introduced  with  the  remark  that  the  time  of  the  promise 
which  God  vouchsafed  to  Abraham  had  come  nigh  (v.  17). 
After  the  four  hundred  years  of  affliction  in  Egypt  which 
followed  upon  the  patriarchs'  treatment  of  Joseph,  God  set 
out  to  redeem  his  promise.  Then  appeared  the  prototype  of 
Messiah  and  was  "fair  unto  God."^  In  his  childhood  the 
oppressor  sought  his  life,  and  he  is  hardly  rescued,  but  by 
the  adoption  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  he  becomes  "instructed 
in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians, "  and  "  mighty  in  words 
and  works. "  ^  The  former  trait  is  borrowed  from  (Alexan- 
drian?) midrash,*  the  latter  certainly  not  suggested  by  Ex- 
odus 4  :  11.  Finally  Moses  like  Abraham  and  the  patriarchs 
(Acts  7  :  5  f.,  29;  Heb.  11  :  9,  13-16),  like  the  people  of 
God  in  the  writer's  time  (1  Peter  1  :  1;  2  :  11,  17),  spends 
the  period  of  his  manhood  as  a  "stranger  and  sojourner. "° 

1  Cf.  Acts  3  :  22,  23.  which  has  at  the  end  the  same  variation  from  the  O.  T., 
Hebrew  and  LXX. 

2  Conil)ining  Exod.  3  :  2  with  the  description  of  Messiah  in  Ps.  45 :  2;  cf .  Hebrews 
11  :  23,  and  Justin,  Tri/jifn),  xxxviii.  The  same  Psalm  is  quoted  as  messianic  in 
Hebrews  1  :  8  f .  The  extraordinary  lieauty  of  Moses  is  a  favorite  theme  of 
Talmudic  writers.  Hebrews  1 1  :  23  f.  dwells  on  the  beauty  of  the  child,  the  rescue 
from  the  oppressor,  the  adoption  by  Pharaoh's  daughter  and  return  of  Moses  to 
his  own  ])eople. 

8  On  the  phrase  Swarhs  iv  \6yois  «ol  tpyois  here  (Acts  7  :  22)  and  in  Luke 
24 :  22,  see  above,  p.  235. 

*  Philo,  Vita  Mos.,  I.  5,  Jos.,  Ant.,  II.  9,  10. 

^  The  only  other  occurrences  of  ■napoiKt'iu  and  its  derivatives  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament besides  those  here  referred  to  are  as  follows  :  Luke  24  :  18  (of  Jesus  the 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  251 

But  why  dwell  upon  the  story  of  Moses'  infancy?  Only  in 
Matthew  2  have  we  a  corresponding  deliverance  of  the  infant 
Redeemer  from  the  wrath  of  the  king,^  and  this  incident  is 
wholly  excluded  from  the  Lucan  form  of  the  story.  On  the 
other  hand  the  legend  of  the  hiding  of  the  infant  Messiah  from 
the  oppressor  is  older  than  any  of  our  New  Testament  writ- 
ings 2  and  was  doubtless  connected  with  the  story  of  Exodus 

I  :  15-2  :  10  at  least  as  soon  as  the  doctrine  of  Messiah  as  the 
alter  Moses  began  to  be  developed.^  Had  we  the  gospel  of 
the  infancy  known  to  our  author  and  to  the  author  of 
Hebrews  11  :  23,  we  might  perhaps  learn  the  nature  of  the 
correspondence  he  seems  aiming  to  bring  out.  Meantime 
there  is  plenty  to  indicate  affinity  with  Alexandrian  and 
Ebionite  teaching. 

A  more  striking  peculiarity  of  our  author's  sketch  of  the 
career  of  Moses  is  that  he  seizes  upon  the  story  of  Exodus  2  : 

II  ff.,  as  if  it  were  simply  an  abortive  attempt  to  carry  out 
the  deliverance  which  is  made  Moses'  mission  in  c.  3,  cer- 
tainly involving  a  strain  upon  the  original.  But  in  this  also 
he  agrees  with  Philo's  Vita  Mos.  Moreover,  this  attempt  is 
not  frustrated  by  Moses'  own  violence  or  precipitancy;  for 
Moses  "  supposed  that  Israel  would  understand  how  that  God 
was  granting  them  redemption  by  his  hand."  It  was  pre- 
vented by  the  callousness  and  obduracy  of  his  people,  and 
the  ^rj\o<i  of  the  evildoer,  who  thrust  him  away,  saying, 
Who  made  thee  a  ruler  and  a  judge  over  us  ?  "  Thus  through 
Israel's  incapacity  to  appreciate  a  divine  deliverance  symboli- 
cally offered,  the  Deliverer  was  withdrawn  and  the  redemp- 
tion deferred  forty  years. ^     The  redemption  which  then  at 

prophet  like  unto  Moses) ;  Acts  13  :  17  (the  fathers  delivered  when  "  sojourners  in 
the  land  of  Egypt ")  and  Eph.  2:19  (Gentile  Christians  are  not  strangers  and  so- 
journers with  Israel,  hut  fellow-citizens). 

1  Heb.  1 1  :  23  f.  "  By  faith  Moses  was  hid  three  months  .  .  .  because  they  feared 
not  the  king's  commandment." 

2  Cf.  Rev.  12  : 1-6. 

^  Cf.   Exod.  4:19  LXX,   reOvf^Kacri  yap  irivTfs  ot  ^tjtovvt^s  <rov  rrjv  ^vxh^, 
with  Matt.  2  :  20,    redv^Kaai  yap  ol  ^Tjrovvres  rijv  \l/vxhf  toD  iraiSiov. 

*  Cf.  Pesikta,  49  b,  "  Messiah  like  Moses  will  first  appear,  then  be  withdrawn 


252  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

last  followed  is  described  simply  by  citation  of  Moses'  mis- 
sion (Exod.  3  :  2  ff.)  to  be  the  ruler  and  judge  and  Xv- 
Tp(OTr}<i  whom  they  had  refused.  The  parallel  to  the  career 
of  Jesus  is  accentuated  by  a  reference  to  the  "  wonders  and 
signs  "  ^  (cf .  Acts  2  :  22 ;  Heb.  2  :  4),  wrought "  forty  years  long 
in  Egypt,  and  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  in  the  wilderness."-  The 
section  is  rhetorically  finished  by  a  citation  of  the  promise  (v. 
37):  "This  is  that  Moses  which  said  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  A  Prophet  shall  God  raise  up  unto  you  from  among 
your  brethren  like  unto  me." 

[b]  The  second  part  of  this  section  on  the  Mosaic  period, 
vv.  38-43,  turns  to  its  prophetic  institution,  the  Law.  And 
here  we  come  upon  an  interpretation  of  Exodus  19-34  as 
unique  in  the  New  Testament  as  anything  in  the  depiction 
of  the  career  of  Moses.  The  point  that  the  speaker  makes 
is  indeed  one  for  which  the  rabbinic  writings  furnish  some- 
thing of  an  analogy  in  their  distinction  of  the  oral  law  or 
qabbalah,  delivered  to  Moses  on  Sinai,  and  by  him  orally 
transmitted  to  Joshua  and  the  succession  of  prophets,  from 
the  written  torah;^  but  it  is  one  which  marks  an  attitude 
toward  the  law  wholly  different  from  the  Pauline,  one  which 
is  in  fact  the  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  Alexandrian 

45  days  "  (from  Dan.  9 :  26).  The  doctrine  of  the  withdrawal  of  Messiah  (Web., 
Altsi/n.  TheoL,  p.  348)  is  seen  also  in  Apocalyptic  literature  ;  cf.  Rev.  12  :  6,  13-16. 

^  Cf.  Clem.  Recogn.,  I.  57,  "  Jesus  was  indeed  he  who  according  to  the  jirophecy 
of  Moses  was  to  come  ;  since  indeed  as  Moses  wrought  signs  and  miracles,  so  also 
did  Jesus." 

2  Hebrews,  which  stands  alone  among  canonical  writings  in  support  of  our 
author's  reference  to  the  "  Red  Sea  as  the  scene  of  deliverance  (Ileb  11  :29;  see 
above,  p.  231,  for  tlie  parallel  to  Assumjitio  Mosis),  also  emphasizes  the  period  of  40 
years  of  deferred  redemption,  seeming  to  suggest  a  ))arallel  between  the  40  years  of 
Deut.  1  : 3,  when  God  bore  with  disobedient  Israel,  and  liis  own  time  (3  :  9  ff.).  This 
has  been  taken  as  an  indication  of  the  date  of  Hebrews.  But  Acts  7  :  23,  30  inserts 
into  the  tradition  two  other  40-year  periods,  one  in  which  Moses,  like  Clirist,  was 
"  growing  in  wisdom,"  the  other  corresponding  to  that  of  God's  long-suffering 
between  the  first  and  second  mission  of  the  Redeemer. 

8  The  midrashic  saying,  "  Moses  became  rich  from  the  chips  struck  off  by  his 
chisel"  (Exod.  34: 1)  illustrates  the  later  conception  of  the  superior  value  of  the 
oral  communications  on  Sinai.  Deuteronomy  itself  purports  to  give  the  content 
of  this  intercourse  with  God,  Deut  5  : 1-6  : 1. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  253 

type  of  Christianity.  For,  as  both  Baur  and  Harnack  have 
made  clear,  our  discrimination  of  the  various  types  of  early 
Christian  thought  must  be  based  principally  on  their  attitude 
toward  the  principal  question  of  the  age,  and  this  is  unmis- 
takably the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  Law.  Now  it  is 
undeniable  that  both  Paul  and  the  Alexandrians  are  ani- 
mated by  a  spirit  of  revolt  against  the  particularism  of  Old 
Testament  religion,  and  while  the  Alexandrian  solution  of 
the  problem  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  qualitative  distinction  be- 
tween the  formal  and  the  spiritual  content  of  the  law,  Paul's 
being  a  temporal  distinction,  these  two  tend  easily  toward 
combination,  so  that  even  in  Paul  we  have  the  beginnings  of 
typology  (1  Cor.  10  :  6 ;  Col.  2  :  17),  and  in  the  apologists  a 
well-defined  theory  of  the  imposition  of  the  aKia  rojv  /jueWov- 
TO)v  at  a  definite  time  and  for  a  particular  fault.  ^  That 
which  is  distinctively,  even  surprisingly,  wanting  in  Paul  is 
the  discrimination  of  the  later  writers  between  the  moral 
and  the  ceremonial  elements  of  the  law.  Paul  is  completely 
lacking,  apparently,  in  that  sense  of  revolt  against  sacerdotal- 
ism and  the  sacrificial  system  so  strikingly  evinced  in  the 
agraphon  from  the  Ebionite  gospel.  "  I  came  to  put  an  end 
to  sacrificing,  and  if  ye  cease  not  from  sacrificing,  wrath  shall 
not  cease  from  you."^  Again  and  again  we  wonder  why 
Paul  does  not  draw  the  distinction  so  constantly  drawn  by 
Justin  between  the  eternal  moral  law  and  the  enactments  of 
the  Mosaic  ceremonial.  But  he  never  does.  The  law  is  to 
him  always  synonymous  with  the  perfect  revelation  of  the 
divine  will,  and  so  long  as  one  is  "under  law,"  all  its  parts 
go  together  and  are  equally  indispensable.  But  the  very 
essence  of  the  redemption  is  to  Paul  that  the  redeemed  (Jews 
and  Gentiles)  are  'Sio   longer  under  law  but  under  grace.'''* 

1  Justin,  Trypho,  xxi,  argniiig  from  Ezek.  20:  19-26,  that  the  ceremonial  was 
imposed,  although  "  not  good,"  on  account  of  the  sin  of  apostasy  at  Sinai,  Exod. 
32  :  6  ff.     See  below,  p.  256. 

2  From  Epiphanius,  Her.,  xxx.  16,  p.  140  B  :  is  rb  trap'  avrois  (sc,  toTj  'E;8jw»'oi- 
ois)  exjayyiXiov  KaXovfievov  Trepie'xe',  Stj  ^KBev  KaTaXvffai  ras  6v(rias,  Kol  eav  /lit) 
Trav(Tr](T9e  rov  Bveiv,  ov  irautreToi  d^'  vpiuv  r\  opyi).  See  Resch,  Agrapha,  §  12  ; 
Apocryphon  6,  p.  373. 


254  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Hence  the  distinction  of  a  spiritualized  law  brought  by- 
Messiah  as  second  jMoses  and  true  Prophet  (AVeber,  Alt- 
syyiag.  Theologie^  §  84)  represented  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
(Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  19  :  16-21;  contrast  Mark), 
James  (2  :  8,  12  i/6/i09  /3acrCkiKo<i  i\€vv6epia<;')^  and  Barnabas 
(ii.  6,  6  Kaivo<;  v6/J,o<i  tov  Kvplov  ri/xwv,  6  avev  ^vyov  avdyKi]^^,  the 
nova  lex  of  the  second  century  fathers,  is  to  Paul  un-Chris- 
tian.  It  is  from  non-Pauline  sources  that  the  second  cen- 
tury takes  its  interpretation  of  the  law  as  twofold  in  charac- 
ter. That  this  non-Pauline  attitude  toward  the  law  existed 
even  in  the  primitive  church  should  not  be  difficult  to  demon- 
strate. There  is  evidence  that,  directly  or  indirectly,  it  stands 
related  to  Alexandria  in  pre-Christian  and  post-Christian 
times,  and  of  this  evidence  an  important  link  is  formed  by 
Acts  6-8,  taken  in  its  connection  with  Hebrews,  Ps.-Barna- 
bas,  the  Kerygma  Petri,  and  the  Clementine  writings.  ^  Of 
the  worth  of  this  evidence  the  reader  must  judge.  Alexan- 
drian Christianity  made  no  such  violent  rupture  with  its 
legalistic  past  as  Paul  with  Pharisaism.  Its  system  of  alle- 
gorical interpretation,  insight,  or  gnosis,  as  it  is  designated 
by  Barnabas,  enabled  it  to  retain  the  Jewish  Scriptures  while 
repudiating  Jewish  particularism,  specifically,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  the  case  of  the  Abrahamic  KXrjpovofMia;  and  the 
aKi]v(o/xa  deov,  but  also,  as  we  shall  see,  in  the  case  even  of 
the  Mosaic  ceremonial.  More  than  one  Jewish  sect,  some 
within  the  limits  of  Palestine  itself,  had  revolted  from  the 
temple  worship  and  scribal  ceremonialism,  carrying  to  a  more 
or  less  radical  extent  the  principle  of  spiritual  interpreta- 

1  The  dependence  of  the  Clementines,  in  their  present  form,  on  our  canonical 
sources  is  undisputed.  Some  may  regard  this  as  a  sufficient  explanation  of  their 
special  connection  with  certain  parts  of  Luke- Acts.  What  is  here  aimed  at  is  a 
demonstration  of  the  affinity  as  existing  not  only  here,  but  in  a  whole  group  of 
writings,  of  which  the  Clementines  and  their  sources  form  but  a  i)art,  and  which 
goes  far  back  and  extends  widely.  For  not  all  the  Alexandrianism  of  early 
Christianity  comes  from  Alexandria.  The  term  is  used  of  a  special  type  of  non- 
Pauline  universalizing  of  Old  Testament  religion,  because  its  chief  centre  was 
Alexandria;  but  Talestinian  thought,  Essenic  and  Ebionite,  was  affected  by  it, 
even  in  pre-Cliristian  times. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  255 

tion.^  Messiah  himself  was  to  be  avrjp  avaKaivoiroiwv  rov 
vofxov  iv  Suvd/xet  vy\n(nov.'^  The  Essenes,  as  is  well  known, 
had  wholly  broken  away  from  the  sacerdotal  system;  but 
the  most  systematic  pre-Christian  attempts  at  universalizing 
Judaism  were  in  Alexandria,  where  Philo  is  only  the  last 
and  greatest  of  a  school  whose  effort  was  to  read  into  Mosa- 
ism  the  theism  of  Plato  by  allegorical  interpretation.  Philo 
himself  protests  against  more  radical  predecessors,  icono- 
clasts, who  rejected  altogether  the  literal  sense,  which  to 
him  was  only  of  lesser  value,  ^  and  regarded  the  spiritual 
only  as  obligatory.  We  have  the  evidence  that  Alexandrian 
Christian  writers  fell  naturally  in  with  this  process  in  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas^  whose  allegorical  interpretation  of  the 
law  of  clean  and  unclean  meats  is  taken  bodily  from  Ps.- 
Aristeas  (ca.  95  B.  c.)  and  is  in  turn  employed  by  Justin 
Martyr.^  Hebrews  9  :  5  even  suggests  that  it  is  only  the 
limitations  of  the  occasion  which  prevent  this  author  from 
developing  the  typological  significance  of  the  tabernacle  fur- 
niture. But  in  one  respect  Christian  Alexandrianism  takes 
a  step  in  advance  of  Judaism.  It  accepts  indeed  the  doc- 
trine of   the  inner  sense  of   the   Law  of   the  more  radical 


1  Cf .  the  sayings  of  Jesus  on  the  law  of  clean  and  unclean  in  Mark  7  :  1 5  ff ., 
and  Luke  11 :  41  (almsgiving  of  the  contents  of  the  dish  purifies  the  food.  Wash- 
ing of  its  surface,  while  the  contents  are  the  fruits  of  rapacity  and  oppression, 
does  not).  Even  Pharisaism  of  the  broader  type  had  similar  tendencies  in  the 
distinction  of  the  greater  and  lesser  commandments  of  the  Law;  cf.  Luke.  10:  26f. ; 
Mark  12  :  32,  and  the  golden  rule  of  Hillel  with  tlie  remark,  "This  is  the  whole 
Law,  the  rest  is  commentary."  Old  Testament  precedent  will  occur  to  every 
one ;  e.  g.,  Mic.  6:6-8;  Ps.  40 :  6-8 ;  50 :  7-15  ;  51 :  16  f.  This  was  the  decided 
tendency  of  the  Wisdom  literature,  with  which  the  Epistle  of  James  is  in  nearest 
connection.  It  is  noteworthy  that  here  we  meet,  along  with  the  warnings  against 
Cv^os  (see  above,  p.  247)  the  conception  of  the  New  Law,  as  in  Barn.,  ii.  6  (cf. 
James  2:  8,  reXe'ire  rhv  ySfiov  fiacriKiKov,  1  :  25,  yS/ios  TeKeios,  d  ttjs  i\evdepias), 
and  of  the  BprjaKfia  (=  Xarpeia)  as  social  morality. 

2  Test,  of  Levi,  xvi. ;  the  passage  is  of  Christian  origin. 

3  See  Gfrorer,  Philo,  I.,  p.  104, 

*  Cf.  Barn.,  x.  with  Ps.-Aristeas,  xxxix.  10  ff.  (Merx.,  Archiv,  I,  1869,  p.  279 ; 
Swete,  Introd.  to  0.  T.  in  Greek,  1900,  pp.  541-548).  For  some  reason  Har- 
nack  (Litgesch.)  regards  the  utilization  of  Barnabas  by  Justin  as  "not  strictly 
demonstrable  ! " 


256  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

iconoclastic  type,  which  Philo  deplored,^  but  it  has  also  an 
explanation  to  offer  of  the  reason  why  the  law  was  given  in 
this  enigmatic  form,  apparently  teaching  a  worship  substan- 
tially identical  in  its  rites  with  heathen  worship,^  although 
its  real  meaning  was  spiritual  and  universal.  This  new 
departure  is  the  application  of  the  doctrine  of  accommodation^ 
probably  based  on  the  saying  of  Jesus  in  explanation  of  the 
Mosaic  statute  of  divorce.  Jesus  taught  that  the  literal  law 
was  adapted  to  conditions  of  human  imperfection.  The  true 
principle  must  be  found  in  the  description  of  man's  ideal 
state  "in  the  beginning  of  the  creation"  (Mark  10  :  2-9). 
In  Christian  Alexandrian  teaching  the  application  is  more 
specific.  The  law  is  not  human,  nor  even  Mosaic  law  in 
general,  but  the  Mosaic  ceremonial.  The  "  hardness  of  heart " 
is  that  of  Israel,  which  compelled  Jehovah  to  "give  them 
statutes  which  were  not  good,  and  judgments  whereby  they 
should  not  live"  (Ezek.  20  :  25;  cf.  Gal.  3  :  21).  More- 
over, even  the  occasion  becomes  specific;  it  was  that  of 
Exodus  32  :  6  ff.,  the  making  of  the  golden  calf.  Thus 
Justin  Martyr  explains  the  Christian  non-observance  of  the 
Mosaic  ceremonial  as  follows  in  the  Dialogue  with  Tiypho 
the  Jew:  "For  we  [Christians]  too  would  observe  the  fleshly 
circumcision  and  the  Sabbaths,  and,  in  short,  all  the  feasts, 
if  we  did  not  know  for  what  reason  the}''  were  enjoined  you; 
namely,  on  account  of  your  transgression  and  the  hardness 
of  your  hearts  ...  for  the  righteous  until  Moses,  Adam, 
Abel,  Enoch,  Melchizedek,  though  uncircumcised  and  keep- 
ing no  Sabbaths,^  were  pleasing  to  God;  and  after  them 
Abraham,  with  all  his  descendants  until  Moses,  under  whom 

1  Cf.  the  doctriue  of  Barnabas  that  Israel  was  misled  by  an  evil  angel  to  ac- 
cepting the  Law  in  a  literal  sense  with  the  agraphon  above  cited,  and  Clem.  Recogn. 
1 :  64 : "  Nos  enim,  inquani  pro  certo  comperimus,  quod  super  sacrificiis,  qu» 
offertis,  multo  niagis  exasperatur  deus,  sacrificiorum  tempore  duutaxat  expleto. 
Et  quia  vos  non  vultis  agnoscerc  emensum  esse  jam  tempus  hostias  offerendi,  ob 
hoc  destruetur  et  templum,  et  abominatio  desolationis  statuetur  in  loco  sancto." 

2  Barn.,  xvi.  2.  "  For,  like  the  heathen  almost,  they  consecrated  God  in  the 
temple." 

8  Hardly  the  conception  of  the  Priestly  Document. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  257 

your  nation  appeared  unrighteous  and  ungrateful  to  God, 
making  a  calf  in  the  wilderness ;  wherefore  God,  accommodat- 
ing himself  to  that  nation,  enjoined  them  also  to  offer  sacrifices 
as  if  to  his  name,  in  order  that  you  might  not  serve  idols, 
which  precept,  however,  you  have  not  observed.  .  .  .  More- 
over, you  were  commanded  to  abstain  from  certain  kinds  of 
food,  in  order  that  you  might  keep  God  before  your  eyes 
while  you  ate  and  drank,  seeing  you  were  prone  to  depart 
from  his  knowledge,  as  Moses  also  affirms :  '  The  people  ate 
and  drank  and  rose  up  to  play. '  .  .  .  Thus  also  God  com- 
manded you  by  the  mouth  of  Moses  to  abstain  from  unclean, 
and  indecent  1  and  rapacious  animals,  when,  though  you 
were  eating  manna  in  the  desert  .  .  .  you  made  and  wor- 
shipped the  golden  calf.  Hence  he  cries,  and  justly,  '  They 
are  foolish  children  in  whom  is  no  faith.' ^  Moreover  that 
God  enjoined  you  to  keep  the  Sabbath  and  imposed  other 
precepts  upon  you  for  a  sign,  as  I  have  already  said,  on 
account  of  your  unrighteousness,  and  that  of  your  fathers 
.  .  .  these  words  of  his  can  prove  to  you.  They  are  nar- 
rated by  Ezekiel.  ...  I  gave  them  also  statutes  which  were 
not  good,  and  judgments  whereby  they  shall  not  live.  .  .  . 
And  that  you  may  learn  that  it  was  for  the  sins  of  your  own 
nation,  and  for  their  idolatries,  and  not  because  there  was 
any  necessity  for  such  sacrifices  that  they  were  enjoined, 
listen  to  the  manner  in  which  He  speaks  of  these  by  Amos. 
.  .  .  '  Have  ye  offered  to  me  victims  and  sacrifices  in  the 
wilderness,  O  house  of  Israel  ?  saith  the  Lord.  And  ye  took 
up  the  tabernacle  of  Moloch  and  the  star  of  your  god  Ra- 
phan  the  figures  (tuttou?)  which  ye  made  for  yourselves,  and 
I  will  carry  you  away  beyond  Damascus,  saith  the  Lord. '  "  ^ 

1  For  the  justification  of  this  term  compare  Barn,  x,  6-8,  and  Ps.-Aristeas  xlii. 
10  (Swete,  p.  547,  15). 

2  Faith  in  the  Alexandrian  sense  of  insight,  gnosis,  penetration  to  the  inner 
spiritual  sense,  as  in  Hebrews,  passim.     Cf.  Justin,  Trypho,  xliv. 

3  Abridged  from  Trypho,  cc.  xviii.-xxii.  Cf .  xxvii.  "  And  although  God  com- 
mands you  by  all  the  prophets  to  do  the  same  (ritual)  things  which  he  also  com- 
manded by  Moses,  it  was  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts  ...  so  tliat 
as  in  tlie  beginning  these  things  were  enjoined  you  because  of  your  wickedness, 

17 


258  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

This  remarkable  doctrine  of  Justin's  regarding  the  Mosaic 
ceremonial  worship  as  offered  only  "as  if  to  God's  name," 
enjoined  "  by  accommodation, "  and  as  supplanting  an  original 
more  spiritual  type,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Aaron  and 
the  people  at  Sinai,  if  it  stood  alone,  might  perhaps  be  suffi- 
ciently explained  as  a  mere  interpretaton  of  Acts  7  :  38-42, 
which  is  manifestly  employed.  Whether  correct  or  not  would 
still  require  to  be  ascertained.  But  it  occurs  as  part  of  a 
larger  connection  reproduced  in  a  whole  series  of  writings  of 
Alexandrian  origin,  the  remotest  link  being  even  of  pre- 
Christian  date.  Item  by  item  Justin  reproduces  the  argu- 
ments and  even  the  language  of  Barnabas;  and  Barnabas 
not  only  builds  on  Hebrews  and  Acts,  but  on  Ps.  -Aristeaa. 
In  Justin  we  find  the  same  ideas  as  in  Barnabas,  supported 
by  the  same  passages,  with  new  and  more  copious  citations. 
Physical  circumcision  is  a  type  only,  since  it  is  shared  by 
Gentile  nations ;  the  real  meaning  being.  Take  away  the  veil 
from  your  hearts  and  ears,  as  says  Jeremiah  (4  :  3):  "Sow 
not  upon  thorns,  break  up  your  fallow  ground,  circumcise 
the  foreskin  of  your  heart"  (^Trypho  xvi.,  xxviii..  Barn,  ix., 
Heb.  6  :  7  f . ;  Acts  7  :  51).  Sabbaths  were  ordained  as  a 
type  of  the  messianic  age,  the  "rest"  of  God  in  the  "new 
creation"  and  the  true  "promised  land"  (in  Trypho  xii., 
xix.,  xxi.,  xxiii..  Sabbaths  were  ordained  for  a  type  of  the 
perpetual  Sabbath  of  the  regenerate  life;  cf.  Barn,  vi.,  rest- 
ing on  Heb.  2  :  5-4  :  13).  The  law  of  clean  and  unclean 
meats  was  symbolical  of  abstinence  from  the  vices  character- 
istic of  the  beasts  in  question,  swine,  birds  of  prey,  hares  and 
hyenas  (^Trypho  xx..  Barn,  x.,  Aristeas  xxxix.  10-xliii.  10  — 
Swete,  pp.  544-548).  "The  temple,  which  is  called  the 
temple  in  Jerusalem,  God  admitted  to  be  His  house  or 
court,  not  as  though  he  needed  it,  but  in  order  that  you,  in 
this  view  of  it,  giving  yourselves  to  Him,  might  not  worship 

in  like  manner  because  of  your  persistence  in  it,  or  rather  your  increased  prone- 
ness  to  it,  he  calls  you  to  a  remembrance  of  it."  Also  c.  xxx :  "  Impute  it  to 
your  own  wickedness  that  God  can  even  be  accused  by  those  who  have  no  under- 
standing of  not  having  always  instructed  all  iu  the  same  righteous  statutes."  In 
later  passages  the  doctrine  is  reiterated. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  259 

idols.  And  that  this  is  so,  Isaiah  says :  '  What  house  have 
ye  built  me,  saith  the  Lord.  Heaven  is  my  throne  and  earth 
is  my  footstool  '  "  (Trypho  xxii. ;  of.  Barn,  xvi.,  Heb.  9, 
Acts  7  :  44-50). 

Not  only  does  Justin  coincide  with  Barnabas  in  his  general 
principle,  and  his  application  of  it  to  the  greater  institutions 
of  Mosaism  as  a  whole,  circumcision.  Sabbaths,  the  law  of 
clean  and  unclean  meats,  the  sacrificial  system,  the  temple; 
but  in  great  detail  he  reproduces  the  particular  types  found 
by  Barnabas,  as  the  two  goats  as  symbols  of  the  two  comings 
of  J esiis,  Tri/p?io  xl.,  cxi.  (^Barn.  vii.),  the  outstretched  hands 
of  Moses  (^Trypho  xci.,  cxii.,  Barn,  xii.),  Joshua's  name 
(^Trypho  cxiii.,  Barn,  xii.,  cf.  Heb.  4  :  8),  and  the  like. 

The  difference  between  the  Alexandrianism  of  Justin  and 
that  of  Barnabas  is  that  whereas  in  Barnabas  the  literal  sense 
is  said  to  be  of  the  Devil  (Barn.^  ix.,  x.),  in  Justin  the  typo- 
logical theory  is  more  fully  adjusted  to  the  Pauline  by  the 
doctrine  that  the  external  sense  was  temporarily  intended.^ 

Before  returning  to  the  doctrine  of  Stephen's  speech  on 
this  fundamental  question  of  the  age,  the  occasion  and  valid- 
ity of  the  Mosaic  law  and  of  the  temple  and  its  worship,  we 
have  still  to  cite  one  or  two  other  early  Christian  documents 
which  illustrate  the  more  radical  type  of  Alexandrianism  rep- 
resented by  Barnabas,  and  which  treat  them  as  "statutes 
which  were  not  good. "  The  Essenic  tendency  already  noted 
as  apparent  in  the  agraphon  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes 
appears  quite  clearly  in  the  Clementine  Recognitions,  whose 
parallels  to  Acts  7  :  38  ff.  are  thus  abridged  and  paraphrased 
by  Hilgenfeld.2  Peter  (Recogn.  I.  32  f.)  teaches  Clement 
that  the  true  Prophet  (Adam-Christ)  had  revealed  to  Abra- 
ham that  circumcision  was  instituted  as  a  sign  and  seal  of 
chastity.  Afterward  the  twelve  patriarchs,  numbering  72 
(sic,  cf.  Acts  7  :  14)  with  their  families,  abode  four  hundred 

1  Trypho  xx\'ii.,  quoted  above  on  p.  77  (note).  In  the  Clementines  Peter  even 
admits  to  Clement  that  there  are  elements  of  Scripture  which  misrepresent  the 
truth,  and  must  be  disregarded. 

2  IFiss.  Th.  1895,  p.  408  f. 


260  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

years  in  Egypt  (Acts  7  :  6).  The  true  Prophet  appeared  to 
Moses  in  Egypt  (Acts  7  :  30)  for  Israel's  deliverance.  But 
when  Moses  had  climbed  the  Mount,  the  people  showed  their 
idolatrous  inclination  by  worshipping  the  golden  calf  (1  :  35 
of.  Acts  7  :  41),  and  Moses  was  then  forced  to  concede  to 
them  the  evil  practice  of  sacrifice,  but  left  the  eradication  of 
it  to  the  true  Prophet,  who  should  be  like  him  and  come 
after  him  (i.  36,  cf.  Acts  7  :  37).  He  was  also  obliged  to 
concede  to  the  weakness  of  the  people  a  special  place  in 
which  alone  it  should  be  lawful  for  them  to  sacrifice.  Only 
a  few  (Essen es  and  the  like)  had  been  able  to  raise  them- 
selves to  an  understanding  of  the  worthlessness  of  sac- 
rifice. Finally  Peter  explains  that  the  building  of  a  ma- 
terial temple  on  the  spot  which  had  been  set  apart  as  a 
place  of  prayer  was  the  impious  act  of  an  ambitious  tyrant  ^ 
(^Reeogn.^  I.  38). 

An  equally  radical  attitude  of  distinct  hostility  to  the 
sacrificial  system  appears  in  an  early  Christian  writing  of 
unmistakably  Egyptian  origin,  whose  relation  to  the  Clemen- 
tine sources  and  the  sources  of  Luke-Acts  is  a  diflficult  prob- 
lem.^  The  Kerygma  Petri^  the  surviving  fragments  of  which 
are  principally  found  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  dates  from 
early  in  the  second  century,  as  the  copious  use  made  of  it  in 
the  Apology  of  Aristides  proves.  Like  Justin,  like  Aristides, 
its  author  aims  to  present  Christianity  in  contrast  first  with 
heathenism,   then   with    Judaism,    dividing   the   world   reli- 

^  Ubi  vero  tyrannos  sibi  magis  quaesivere  quam  reijes,  tunc  etiam  in  loco,  qui 
eis  oratiouis  causa  fuerat  praidestinatus,  teinplum  pro  ambitione  rcgia  coiistruxere. 
Recogn.,  I.  38. 

2  There  is  also  conclusive  evidence  of  literary  dependence  between  the 
Kerygma  Petri  and  the  Clementines  (see  v.  Dobschiitz,  T.  u.  U.  xi.  p.  33).  Recogn. 
V.  20,  and  Ilomil.,  X.  16  agree  verbally  in  their  description  of  Egyptian  brute 
worship,  both  (and  consequently  their  older  common  source)  reproducing  the 
Ap.  of  Aristides,  c.  xii.,  which  in  turn  reproduces  Frg.  Ill  of  the  Keri/gmn,  this 
in  turn  showing  connection  with  Aristeas,  xxxviii.  10.  To  complete  the  chain  of 
Alexandrian  sources  we  need  only  add  the  relations  which  von  Dobschiitz  has 
pointed  out  between  Frg.  II  of  tlie  Ken/gma  and  Thilo,  the  Prorr.minin  in  Theojth. 
ad  AutoK,  II.  36,  and  the  Sibijlllne  Oracles,  viii.  375  ff.,  and  300.  Also  between 
Frg.  Ill  and  Celsus  (Orig.  c.  Oils.  iii.  19),  with  Origen's  refutation. 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  .  261 

gioiisly  into  these  three  "genera."  For  his  contrast  between 
Jewish  and  heathen  worship,  in  particular  the  description  of 
heathen  rites,  wherein  the  Egyptian  receive  special  atten- 
tion, he  resorts  in  part,  as  had  Barnabas,  to  Aristeas.^  The 
whole  passage  is  also  so  close  in  form  and  substance  to 
Acts  17  :  24-31  (cf.  also  Acts  14  :  15-17)  as  to  compel  the 
recognition  of  some  more  or  less  direct,  but  apparently  liter- 
ary connection. 2  But  we  are  concerned  now  with  the  de- 
scription of  Jewish  worship  which  in  the  Kerygma  is  placed 
in  the  mouth  of  Peter,  and  which  appears  to  have  followed 
upon  that  of  the  heathen :  —  "  Neither  worship  ye  as  do  the 
Jews,  for  these,  fancying  that  they  alone  know  God,  know 
him  not,  but  are  worshippers  of  angels  and  archangels,  the 
month  and  the  moon.  And  unless  the  moon  appear  they  do 
not  observe  the  sabbath,  which  is  called  First, ^  nor  do  they 
observe  the  new  moon,  nor  Unleavened  Bread,  nor  the  Feast 
(Tabernacles),  nor  a  great  day." 

We  get  the  full  significance  of  this  arraignment  of  the 
Mosaic  ceremonial,  and  its  ritual  calendar,  as  a  "  worship  of 
angels  and  archangels,"  by  comparing  Paul's  arraignment  of 
the  Judaizers  in  Galatia  for  returning  in  their  newly  adopted 
observance  of  (Sabbath)  "days  and  months  (new-moons), 
and  seasons  (D^I^/ID)  and  (Sabbatic)  years  "  to  a  worship  of 

1  Cf.  Aristeas,  xxxviii.  15-39:  5  Swete,  542,  10-544,  20,  with  Kerygma  Petri, 
Frg.  Ill,  ed.  Dobschiitz  {Texte  u.  Unt.  xi.)-     See  the  preceding  note. 

2  "  Voraussetzung  des  in  der  Heideukirche  sich  bildenden  Dogmas  ist  ein  nur 
in  diirftigen  Grundziigeu  feststeheudes,  sonst  aber  hochst  bildsames  Kerygma 
von  dem  einen  Gott  und  von  Christus  "  (quoted  by  v.  Dobschiitz,  ibid,  from  Har- 
nack,  D.  G.^  I,  67).  He  adds :  "  Bei  jenem  herrscht  der  Gedanke  der  Weltschup- 
fung,  bei  diesem  meist  der  des  Endgerichtes  vor,"  and  cites  II  Clem.  1:1,  and 
Harn.,  Patr.  Apost.  Opera,  I,  2,  p.  140.  Cf.  Acts  17 :  24-31,  and  Kerygma  Petri 
Frags.  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  also  attributed  to  Alexandria,  gives  one  of  the  best 
and  fullest  examples  of  this  Kerygma.  Cf.  Wisd.  13:  6,  10,  with  Acts  17: 
23-27.  Its  comparison  of  Greek  with  Egyptian  idolatry  is  specially  noteworthy 
in  connection  with  Aristeas  and  Kerygma  Petri  (cf.  Wisd.  15  :  18-16  :  1,  with 
Aristeas  xxxviii.  1-15  (Merx.  Archiv.  i.  p.  278). 

'  For  the  elaborate  ceremonies  connected  with  the  establishment  of  the  annual 
religious  calendar,  beginning  with  the  examination  of  "witnesses  of  the  moon" 
for  the  "  sauctification  of  the  (Passover)  new  moon,"  see  the  Talmudic  tractate 
Rosh-hasshanah. 


262  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  aroL-)(ela  tov  Kocrfiov,  which,  as  compared  with  the  direct 
"access  in  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father"  (Eph.  2  :  18),  ob- 
tained by  Christ  for  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  is  no  better  than 
their  original  heathenism.  Everling^  long  ago  proved  that 
the  (TTOLx^la  TOV  Koa/jiov,  both  here  in  Galatians  4  :  3,  9  and 
Colossians  2  :  8,  where  the  observance  of  "feast-days,  new 
moons  and  sabbath  days "  is  associated  with  "  worshipping 
of  angels  "  and  the  rites  declared  to  be  a  km  rSiv  fieXkovrwv 
whose  corporeal  reality  is  "of  Christ,"  are  angelic  beings  in 
control  of  the  four  elements  of  nature  and  the  heavenly 
bodies.  Since  then  the  Apology  of  Aristides  has  been  brought 
to  light;  and  this  writer  not  only  declares  the  Jews  to  be  in 
their  worship  "  like  the  heathen,  even  if  in  some  sort  they  do 
appear  to  approach  the  truth,"  asserting  that  the  Mosaic  cere- 
monial is  addressed  "  to  angels  and  not  to  God,  seeing  they 
observe  Sabbaths  and  new  moons  and  the  Passover  and  the 
great  Fast,  and  fasts  and  circumcision  and  cleanness  of 
meats,  "^  but  employs  arotxeict  tov  KoafMov  as  his  favorite 
term  for  the  elemental  spirits  who  are  the  real  beings  actu- 
ally honored  in  the  worship  offered  to  angels,  demons,  spirits 
and  divinities  whether  Jewish  or  heathen.  The  Judaizers  of 
Colossae,  accordingly,  are  but  slightlj'-  different  from  those  of 
Galatia.  The  common  besetting  sin  of  contemporary  Juda- 
ism, a  superstitious  angelology  and  demonology,^  comes  a  little 
more  into  the  foreground,  Pharisaic  nomism  has  retreated 
a  little  more  into  the  background.  In  both  epistles  Paul  is 
setting  forth  this  contrast  of  Christianity  with  a  more  or  less 
theosophic  Judaism,  and  the  point  of  superiority  emphasized 
is  that  Christianity  affords  direet  instead  of  merely  indirect 

1  Pauliulsche  Anrjelolorjie  und  Diimnnolof/ie,  1888.  See  also  E.  Y.  Hincks  in 
Journ.  of  Bibl.  Lit.  1896;  and  Woods,  "Survivals  in  Christianity,"  1893,  p.  71, 
quoting  Garnett,  "  Women  of  Turkey  and  tlieir  Folk-l(.)re." 

2  Ap.  of  Aristides,  c.  xiv.  (Texts  and  Studies,  I,  1, 1891).  See  alsoZalm,  Gesch. 
d.  Kan.  II,  2 :  2,  p.  823).  In  2  Clem.,  a  writing  affected  by  Egyjjtian  sources,  the 
Jews  are  called  ol  doKovi/res  ^x*'"  '''^'^  ^f^*'!  cf.  Ep.  to  Diogn.  c.  iii.,  6fxoioTp6irws 
(sc.  TO?y  idvicri)  r^v  dprjffKftau  irpocriyovaiv,  kt\. 

8  Note  the  special  character  of  early  error  in  neighboring  Ephesus.  Acts 
19: 13-19. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  263 

access  to  God  (cf.  Gal.  3  :  19  f. ;  Eph.  2  :  18).  The  Mosaic 
ceremonial,  as  proved  by  its  "  days  and  months  and  seasons 
and  years,"  and  by  the  fact  that  it  was  "ordained  through 
angels  by  the  hand  of  a  mediator  "  (Gal.  3  :  19)  was  adapted 
to  the  immaturity  of  the  recipients.  Its  rules  and  ceremonies 
were  addressed  to  "  beings  who  by  nature  are  not  divine  " 
(4  :  8)  but  were  temporarily  appointed  by  the  Father  as 
"stewards  and  guardians  of  the  heir,"  having  only  a  dele- 
gated authority  (hence  aaOevrj)  and  no  personal  ownership 
(hence  7rT&);^a)  of  the  inheritance  (the  world)  with  which 
they  had  been  entrusted  until  the  coming  of  the  "lord  of 
all."^  The  nature  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  (e.  g.,  its  lunar 
calendar),  especially  its  extraordinary  resemblance  to  heathen 
rites  2  and  the  beings  through  whom,  historically,  it  was 
mediated,  show  it  therefore  to  be  in  form  ^  a  worship  of 
angels,  although  the  distinctions  of  meats  (the  Colossian 
Judaizers  had  in  addition  distinctions  of  "  drinks ;  "  cf .  Rom. 
14  :  IT,  21)  and  the  observances  of  new  moons,  sabbaths  and 
feasts,  are  providentially  adapted  to  foreshadow  Christ  (Col. 
2  :  17)  and  might  thus  conceivably  be  utilized  ruTrtKco?,  after 
the  Alexandrian  manner.  That  which  proves,  however,  that 
these  allusions  to  the  law  externally  conceived  as  being  a 
"  worship  of  angels  "  or  crrot^^eta,  do  not  belong  to  the  sub- 
stance of  Paul's  teaching,  but  are  merely  borrowed  for  the 
occasion,  is  the  fact  above  noted,  that  there  is  no  attempt  to 
distinguish  between  the  external  and  the  spiritual,  the  divine 
and  the  human,  the  temporal  and  eternal  in  the  law,  and  no 
attempt  even  to  carry  out  the  typology  whose  practicability 
is  implied.     It  is  therefore  a  mistake  to  attempt  to  account 

1  See  above  (p.  242)  the  citation  from  Enoch,  Ixxxix.  f.,  as  to  the  70  angels  to 
whose  guardianship  Israel  was  entrusted  by  God,  and  who  are  judged  for  unfaith- 
fulness to  their  charge.  In  Clem.  Recogn.,  II.  42,  each  of  the  72  nations  has  its 
"prince"  or  angelic  guardian,  that  of  Israel  being  Michael. 

2  In  Gal.  5 :  12,  Paul  regards  the  mere  outward  rite  of  circumcision  as  com- 
parable to  the  heathen  religious  castration. 

"  Cf.  Col.  2:11,  where  the  Jewish  fleshly  circumcision  is  xe«po'''o«?7Tos;  with 
Acts  7 :  48,  eV  x^'fOTo^^rots,  and  41,  where  those  who  ev<ppaivovTo  iv  to7s  epyoii 
T&v  x^'P^"  awTwi/,  receive  the  ordinances  of  angels  in  place  of  the  \aTpeia. 


264  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

for  the  doctrine  of  the  Kerygma^  Barnabas^  and  the  Epistle 
to  Diognetus  (c.  1),  which  treats  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  as  a 
"  superstition  "  addressed  to  semi-divine  beings,  as  based  on 
Galatians  4  :  1-11.  In  Paul  we  find  at  most  occasional  off- 
shoots of  the  doctrine.  Its  roots  must  be  sought  among 
Ebionite  and  Alexandrian  writers,  in  the  distinction  between 
the  Xoyoa  ^oivra^  discovered  by  gnosis  underneath  the  Mosaic 
ceremonial,  and  the  system  itself,  which,  if  not  actually  evil 
and  idolatrous,  is  at  least  heathenish,  and  tolerated  by  God 
only  "by  accommodation  to  that  nation." 

With  this  understanding  of  the  distinctive  elements  of 
Pauline  and  Alexandrian  thought,  however  occasionally  in- 
termingled, we  return  to  the  doctrine  of  Stephen's  speech, 
which  represents  in  Acts  7  :  42,  that  the  Mosaic  ceremonial 
was  ordained  as  a  punishment  for  the  stiffneckedness  (cf. 
Ex.  32  :  9 ;  33  :  1)  and  hard-heartedness  of  Israel,  God  being 
compelled  continually  by  their  grossness  to  put  off  the  fulfil- 
ment of  his  promise  to  Abraham,  and  to  hide  the  true  Xarpeia 
behind  one  adapted  to  a  people  which  delighted  in  "the 
works  of  their  hands  "  (externalities),  "  turned  back  in  their 
hearts  to  Egypt,"  and  had  to  be  given  over  to  a  Xarpeia  of 
"  the  host  of  heaven. " 

For  we  have  here  as  sharp  a  distinction  as  in  Barnabas  and 
Justin,  between  the  Xoyia  ^covra  originally  delivered  to  Moses 
for  the  people  in  fulfilment  of  the  promise  whose  time  for 
fulfilment  had  now  come  (v.  17),  that  they  should  serve 
him  in  the  appointed  place  (v.  7),  and  the  ceremonial  law. 
The  "  living  oracles  "  proved  all  too  ideal  for  an  unworthy 
people,  and  were  dashed  to  fragments  at  the  foot  of  the 
mount.  The  sacrificial  system  actually  ordained  was  suited 
to  the  people's  demand  of  Aaron,  "Make  us  gods  which  shall 
go  before  us."  It  was  not  a  worship  addressed  directly  to 
God,  but  to  "the  host  of  heaven,"  for  the  prophet  declares 
(so  argues  our  speaker)  that  the  slain  beasts  and  sacrifices  of 
the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  were  not  offered  to  God. 
On  the  contrary,  to  the  prophet  its  tabernacle  was  a  taber- 
nacle of  Moloch,  and  its  implements  mere  tvttou?,  images  of 


STEPHEN'S   SPEECH  265 

Saturn  the  star-god,  ^  ignorantly  worshipped.  It  would  be 
unreasonable  to  attempt  to  show  that  the  Elohistic  account 
of  the  giving  of  the  Decalogue,  followed  by  the  people's 
apostasy  under  the  lead  of  Aaron,  and  the  subsequent  insti- 
tution of  the  ceremonial  worship  was  intended  by  its  prophet 
author  to  suggest  the  superiority  of  the  moral  law  as  the  true 
basis  of  divine  favor  (cf.  Micah  6  :  6-8).  Actual  continuity 
between  the  ancient  prophetic  and  the  later  Alexandrian  and 
Ebionite  antipathy  to  ceremonialism  is  more  than  we  under- 
take to  show.  We  observe  only  that  this  interpretation  of 
Exodus  20  to  34  lay  very  near  to  hand,  and  is  seized  upon  by 
our  author  and  his  followers.  Because  of  the  stiffnecked- 
ness  of  the  people  and  their  craving  for  external  forms  like 
the  Egyptian,  "  God  turned  (from  his  purpose  that  they 
should  serve  Am,  v.  7)  and  gave  them  up  to  serve  the  host 
of  heaven^''''  i.  e.,  angels,  in  particular  those  represented  by 
the  heavenly  bodies.  For  proof  he  refers  to  Amos  5  :  25, 
assuming  that  the  question  "Did  ye  offer  unto  me  slain 
beasts  and  sacrifices  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  O  house  of 
Israel?"  is  to  be  answered,  No,  but  to  beings  who  find  de- 
light in  ceremonial  worship,  viz.,  the  host  of  heaven,  the 
cTTOix^Xa  of  sun  and  stars.  This  he  takes  to  be  indicated  in 
the  words  which  follow,  "And  ye  took  up  the  tabernacle  of 
Moloch,  and  the  star  of  the  god  Rephan,  figures  {jvirovi) 
which  ye  made  to  worship  them."^ 

Undoubtedly  there  are  objections  to  this  interpretation  of 
Acts  7  :  39-44,  in  spite  of  the  fact  shown  by  the  parallels 

1  For  Moloch  as  sun-god,  see  Miller  in  Herzog's  Eealencykl.^  Eephan  is  the 
Coptic  name  for  ?VD,  Chiun,  or  Saturn,  intelligible  to  the  LXX,  and  apparently 
to  the  author  of  the  speech  of  Stephen. 

2  The  sense  of  the  original :  the  wilderness  period  one  destitute  of  sacrifices 
and  offerings,  although  a  time  of  special  favor,  was  hopelessly  lost  after  the 
Priestly  Document  came  in  to  represent  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  as  the 
sacerdotal  period,  Kar'  i^oxf)v.  Our  author  does  not,  of  course,  venture  to  deny 
the  continual  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifice  of  the  forty  years  in  the  wilderness, 
though  such  is  really  the  meaning  of  Amos,  neither  does  he  assert  that  they  were 
not  intended  for  Yahwe;  but  he  appeals  to  prophetic  denunciation  in  proof  that 
God  refused  to  regard  them  as  offered  to  himself,  and  turned  over  this  unworthy 
Karpeia  to  "  the  host  of  heaven." 


266  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

we  adduce  from  the  Kerygma^  Barnabas,  Justin,  and  the 
Clementines,  showing  that  this  was  the  understanding  of 
the  author's  contemporaries  and  literary  kindred.  We  are 
well  aware  that  the  worship  of  "the  host  of  heaven  "  (Jer. 
7  :  18,  LXX)  belongs  specifically  to  the  time  of  Manasseh. 
We  are  also  aware  that  the  question  and  answer  quoted  from 
Amos  refer  to  two  different  periods  separated  by  an  interval 
of  some  six  centuries.  The  inference  is  too  easily  drawn 
that  the  Christian  speaker  has  the  same  idea ;  that  he  means, 
"  Did  you  continue  in  the  high  and  spiritual  worship  ordained 
for  you  in  the  wilderness,  according  to  the  promise,  '  Ye  shall 
worship  me  in  this  place,'  O  Israel?  Nay,  repeatedly  you 
forsook  it  and  worshipped  strange  gods."  But  what  has  the 
apostasy  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  Manasseh  and  Jeremiah  to 
do  with  the  Stephen's  argument?  No  one  then  denied  these 
later  idolatries  of  Israel.  No  one  then  would  have  ventured 
to  assert  that  Israel's  present  Xarpeca  was  not  scrupulously 
conformed  to  the  prescribed  ceremonial,  and  sincerely  in- 
tended for  God.  At  the  utmost  this  subsequent  apostasy 
was  an  episode  of  Israel's  past,  which  aggravated  the  gen- 
eral charge  against  them  (v.  53,  Kal  ovk  icjivXd^are);  but  it 
was  the  merest  incident  to  the  principle  at  stake.  The  ques- 
tion as  between  the  speaker  and  his  opponents  concerns  the 
present  Xarpeia  of  "slain  beasts  and  sacrifices,"  as  to  whose 
ordination  at  Sinai  both  agree,  the  Jew  claiming  that  this  of 
itself  is  decisive  as  to  its  being  "  the  Xarpeia  "  (Rom.  9  :  5), 
the  worship  promised  in  Exodus  3  :  12,  and  actually  insti- 
tuted by  God,  perfect,  absolute,  ultimate.  The  question 
concerns  the  worship  of  the  forty  years  iyi  the  ivilderness,  a 
period  conceived  by  both  parties,  and  proverbially  by  every 
Old  Testament  writer,  as  the  typical  period  of  Israel's  faith- 
ful adherence  to  Yahwd.  Unless  the  Christian  can  prove 
in  some  way  that  this  is  not  the  Xarpeia,  not  ultimate  but 
provisional  (Paulinism);  not  direct,  but  indirect  (Gal.  3  : 
19  f.,  24;  4  :  1-4,  8-11);  not  life-giving  (Xoyia  ^divra,  vofio^ 
Bvvd/jb€vo<;  ^(ooiroieladai),  but  a  matter  of  "dead  works," 
"  works  of  men's  hands  "  (epya  veKpd,  Heb.  6  :  1 ;  9   :  14, 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  267 

€pjoi<;  roiv  %etp&iz/  avrwv^  Acts  7  :  41);  not  "worship  in  spirit 
and  in  truth,"  not  the  XoyiKr)  Xarpela  and  6vaia  ^waa  "ac- 
ceptable to  God  "  (Rom.  12  :  1),  not  the  Oprjo-Keia  KaOapa  /cal 
afiiavTo<;  irapa  tc5  Oew  Kal  irarpi  (James  1  :  27) ;  but  falling 
far  short  of  the  divine  intention  (Acts  7  :  7,  38),  he  has 
wasted  his  words.  All  he  has  said  proves  nothing,  the  sec- 
ond Moses  can  do  no  more  when  he  comes  than  improve,  if 
that  be  possible,  on  the  scrupulosity  of  the  ritual  ordained 
after  the  apostasy  at  Sinai. 

Accordingly  our  speaker  most  indisputably  conceives  his 
quotation  as  referring  to  the  worship  of  the  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness^  that  of  the  tabernacle,  which  "  our  fathers  had  in 
the  wilderness  "  as  a  "  tabernacle  of  fMaprvpia,  even  as  he 
appointed  who  spake  unto  Moses,  that  he  should  make  it 
according  to  the  tutto?  that  he  had  seen."  If  additional 
proof  were  needed  that  the  speaker  conceives  the  prophet  as 
referring  not  to  subsequent  idolatries  in  the  answer  he  gives 
to  his  own  question,  but  to  the  same  wilderness  worship,  the 
worship  of  the  tabernacle,  it  would  be  found  in  the  illogical 
break  advocates  of  the  accepted  view  are  obliged  to  discover 
not  only  after  v.  42,  but  again  after  v.  43.  Against  this  we 
have  the  interweaving  from  v.  42  to  v.  46  of  words  and  ideas 
which  prove  that  in  the  speaker's  mind  all  refer  to  the  same. 
God  gave  Israel  up  after  the  apostasy  at  Sinai  to  serve  (Xar- 
peveLv)  "  the  host  of  heaven  "  (arparta  rov  ovpavov).  This 
inference  (of  v.  42*)  is  drawn  from  the  (supposed)  fact  that 
Amos  had  designated  the  tabernacle  "a  tabernacle  for  the 
sun  "  ("Moloch,"  Amos  5  :  26,  cf.  Ps.  19  :  4),  and  its  uten- 
sils as  made  for  the  worship  of  this  sun-god,  and  the  star- 
god  Rephan.  The  back  reference  of  v.  44  to  the  ri/Trou?  of 
V.  43  is  equally  clear,  since  the  author  draws  from  it  his 
inference  that  this  tabernacle  and  its  utensils  were  in  fact 
"types,"  though  both  here  and  in  Hebrews  9  :  5  the  less 
important  "  types "  are  passed  over  for  the  sake  of  the 
greater,  the  type  of  the  tabernacle  itself,  a  ax/jpT]  t^?  /xaprv- 
pLa^,  which  testified  of  the  "tabernacling  presence"  (^o-kij' 
voifxa)  sought  by  David. 


268  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Besides  this  break,  wrongly  assumed  in  the  usual  interpre- 
tation, there  is  the  violence  assumed  to  be  done  by  Stephen 
to  the  sacred  history.  In  the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  in 
a  constant  and  unvarying  tradition,  the  forty  years  of  the 
wilderness  were  the  period  of  all  others  of  Israel's  con- 
stancy.^ It  is  most  improbable  that  Stephen  (or  the  author 
of  the  speech)  should  conceive  them  as  the  reverse. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  we  are  willing  to  look  outside  the 
New  Testament  to  analogous  statements  in  Ebionite  and 
Alexandrian  sources,  the  author's  declaration  that  the  taber- 
nacle worship  was  in  reality  (though  not  of  course  in  the 
estimation  of  the  worshippers)  a  worship  not  of  God  directly, 
but  of  "the  host  of  heaven,"  i.  e.,  "angels  and  archangels,  the 
moon  and  the  month,  "^  and  that  the  prophets  manifest  their 
knowledge  of  the  fact  in  their  repudiation  of  the  ritual,  will 
evince  itself  as  by  no  means  so  startling  as  at  first  sight  appears. 
In  reality  it  is  essential  to  the  argument  of  the  speech  as  a 
whole;  for,  be  it  noted,  the  conflict  of  early  Christianity  is 
not  with  the  temple  ceremonial,  which  offers  but  slight  temp- 
tation to  the  people,  none  whatever  after  70  A.  d.,  but  the 
tabernacle  ceremonial  of  Exodus -Numbers  conceived  as  hav- 
ing magical  effect  through  mediation  of  angels.  It  is  this 
"ceremonial  on  paper"  of  Rabbinic  Judaism  which  is  an- 
tagonized by  Hebrews  and  by  our  author  from  a  practically 
identical  standpoint.  Doubtless  our  author  understands  the 
prophet  in  the  passage  he  cites  as  employing  the  names 
Moloch  and  Rephan  hyperbolically,  but  it  is  the  same  taber- 
nacle worship,  that  which  now  claims  to  be  the  Xarpeia^  that 
which  Amos  repudiated,  to  which  he  now  would  oppose  \6yia 
^covra  and  a  XoyiKr)  Xarpeia  evdpecno<;  tm  deep.  Israel  still 
continues  to  delight  in  "the  works  of  their  hands,"  fondly 
imagining  that  such  an  outward  Xarpeia  is  acceptable  to 
God.     The  prophet  with  clearer  vision  perceived  it  long  ago 

1  Num.  25 :  1  £f. ;  Deut.  32  :  12,  fall  outside  this  period,  and  moreover  could  not 
be  regarded  as  justifying  the  statement  that  God,  after  the  Sinai  apostasy, 
"turned,  and  gave  them  up  to  serve  the  host  of  heaven." 

^  Kerygma  Petri. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  269 

to  be  not  only  unworthy  to  be  addressed  to  him,  but  by  the 
divine  intention  a  service  of  sun  and  stars,  properly  to  be 
classed  with  heathen  rites  ^  addressed  to  Moloch  and  Saturn, 
though  "  typical  "  of  a  higher  worship. 

Our  author  accordingly  distinguished  between  the  \6yia 
^Sivra  God  was  on  the  point  of  giving,  —  had  in  fact  already 
given  —  through  Moses,  and  the  actual  Mosaic  law.  Like 
Barnabas  he  would  deny  the  claim  of  the  Jews  to  possess 
even  the  covenant  of  the  law.  "Ours  it  is;  but  they  lost 
it  in  this  way  forever,  when  Moses  had  just  received  it. 
For  the  Scripture  saith,  And  Moses  was  in  the  mountain 
fasting  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  and  he  received  the 
covenant  from  the  Lord,  even  tables  of  stone  written  with 
the  finger  of  the  hand  of  the  Lord.  But  they  lost  it  by  turn- 
ing unto  idols.  For  thus  saith  the  Lord:  Moses,  Moses, 
come  down  quickly,  for  thy  people  whom  thou  broughtest 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt  have  done  unlawfully.  And  Moses 
understood  and  threw  the  two  tables  from  his  hands;  and 
their  covenant  was  broken  in  pieces,  that  the  covenant  of  the 
Beloved,  Jesus,  might  be  sealed  unto  our  hearts  in  the  hope 
which  springeth  from  faith  in  him."^ 

Our  author,  like  the  author  of  the  Kerygma  Petri^  denied 
that  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  was  addressed  directly  to  God, 
and  declared  it  to  be  a  "service  of  angels."  How  else  shall 
we  account  for  the  contrast  of  v.  7  with  v.  42  Xarpevaoval 
fioi  ev  TM  TOTTco  TOvTO)  .  .  .  eirearpey^e,  koli  TrapeScoKev  avTov<i 
Xarpeveiv  rrj  crrparia  tov  ovpavov?  Whether  the  conception 
came  from  Galatians  3  :  19;  4  :  1-8,  or  both  are  derived 
from  some  earlier  Alexandrian  writer,  at  all  events  we  have 
in    Acts    7   a   more    advanced    and    radical    form   than   in 

^  Cf.  Barn.  xvi.  2.  "  For  almost  like  the  heathen  they  sanctified  him  in  the 
temple."  The  very  fact  that  it  is  here  so  hard  to  draw  the  line  between  actual 
heathen  worship,  and  the  Mosaic  ritual  as  conceived  by  this  writer,  is  the  charac- 
teristic feature.  The  further  we  go  from  Paulinisra  in  the  direction  of  the  later 
Christian  Alexandrianism  the  more  evanescent  becomes  the  line  of  differentiation 
between  the  Jewish  "superstition"  (Ep.  to  Diognetus,  c.  1)  and  actual  heathen 
worship. 

2  Barn.  iv.  6-8. 


270  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Galatians  and  Hebrews,  where  the  mediation  of  the  Law 
through  angels  is  more  prominent  than  its  character  as  a 
worship  of  angels. 

But  our  author's  Alexandrianism  finds  typological  signifi- 
cance even  in  this  worship  of  angels.  The  tabernacle  itself 
and  the  "  star  of  Rephan  "  ^  were  "  types, "  v.  43,  though 
naturally  the  speech  does  not  stop  as  the  author  of  the  X6709 
irapaK\r)aeo3'i  (Heb.  9)  intimates  that  he  might,  to  "speak 
severally  "  of  the  "  candlestick  and  the  table  and  the  shew- 
bread."  It  passes  on  rather  in  its  final  division,  verses  44- 
50,  to  deal  with  the  third  prerogative  claimed  by  Judaism, 
leading  over  through  reference  to  the  i^/^sAA;an-tabernacle,  a 
"type,"  in  the  author's  view,  of  the  /S'AeA:m«A-presence  ^of 
God,  nought  for  by  David,  misconceived  and  lost  by  Solo- 
mon, but  realized  in  the  Messianic  age. 

3.  In  this  section  there  is  no  development  of  the  personal 
theocratic  type  of  Messiah,  although  we  are  not  left  in  doubt 
as  to  who  it  is,  for  v.  45  closes  a  period  ("  until  the  days  of 
David ")  and  in  v.  46  David  is  expressly  characterized  as 
the  man  "who  found  favor  in  the  sight  of  God."  But  the 
supreme  significance  of  David,  as  here  conceived,  is  not  that 
he  achieved  the  independence  of  the  nation  and  thus  became 
forerunner  of  the  Messianic  king  (cf.  2  :  30  £E.),  but  that  he 
again  brought  the  divine  promise  (7:7;  cf.  Luke  1  :  69-75) 
to  the  verge  of  fulfilment  in  the  form  of  the  dwelling  of 
God  with  his  people.  The  speech  rightly  considers  this 
Shekinah-presence  to  have  been  symbolized  by  the  taber- 
nacle. Exodus  25  :  8;  29  :  43-46.  The  temple,  on  the  con- 
trary, it  conceives  to  have  been  a  perversion  of  the  promise 

^  What  onr  author  understood  by  "  the  star  of  Rephan  "  is  a  puzzle.  That  the 
rvvos  symbolized  to  him  the  Star  of  Jacob  (Num.  24:  17)  would  seem  credible; 
but  what  utensil  carried  by  Israel  in  the  tabernacle  or  in  heathen  worship  had 
the  shape  of  a  star  7     Perhaps  he  would  have  been  as  much  at  a  loss  to  answer 

as  we. 

2  We  should  be  obliged  to  coin  some  such  term  as  cotabernaculatio  dei  to  cor- 
respond in  sense  with  the  Hebrew.  The  Greek  plays  upon  the  terms  ffKvyfi 
(w.  43,  44)  and  iTKi\vuna  (v.  46)  in  a  manner  fairly  equivalent  to  the  Hebrew 
mishkan  and  shekinah,  both  formed  from  p'd  "to  tabernacle." 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  271 

in  the  same  way  as  the  ceremonial  worship  had  been  a  per- 
version of  the  covenant:  "they  shall  serve  me."  Was  it  not 
called  the  tabernacle  of  the  testimony  (rov  fiaprvpLov)?  And 
had  it  not  been  made  according  to  the  figure  (tutto?)  ap- 
pointed by  God,  who  showed  the  pattern  to  Moses  in  the 
Mount  ?^  Did  not  the  story  of  Exodus  33  :  1-7  represent 
that  the  tabernacle  was  a  substitute  for  the  actual  presence 
of  God?  It  remained  then  during  the  period  of  the  conquest 
under  Joshua,  "unto  the  days  of  David,"  and  this  is  clearly 
conceived  as  a  period  of  God's  favor,  when  he  "thrust  out 
the  nations  from  their  possession  before  the  face  of  our 
fathers."  During  these  years  it  remained  a  "testimony" 
and  "  type ;  "  but  David,  a  theocratic  forerunner  of  Messiah, 
assured  of  God's  favorable  regard,  sought  actual  fulfilment. 
He  asked  of  God  —  not  to  "  build  him  an  house, "  but  —  to 
"find  a  habitation  (o-/c77i/cD/Aa)  for  the  God  of  Jacob."  The 
phraseology  is  borrowed  from  Psalm  132  :  2,  5,  but  both 
here  and  still  more  clearly  in  the  fundamental  passage, 
2  Samuel  7  :  5-11,  David  appears  as  receiving  from  God 
something  better  than  "  a  house  of  cedar  "  for  the  ark.  In- 
deed there  is  already  in  the  Elohist  narrative  of  2  Samuel 
7  an  unmistakable  antipathy  for  ceremonialism  in  general, 
and  particularly  for  the  claims  of  the  Judsean  royal  sanctuary 
in  Jerusalem  to  be  the  exclusive  "house  of  God,"  whatever 
we  may  say  as  to  the  anti-priestly,  anti-Aaronic  animus  of 
the  story  of  the  golden  calf  and  the  institution  of  ceremonial 
worship  in  Exodus  32  f.  In  the  original  David  receives,  in- 
stead of  what  he  asks,  the  assurance  that  God  will  build 
(i.  e.,  establish)  his,  David's,  house  (i.  e.,  his  dynasty).  In 
Stephen's  speech  we  are  carried  further  still,  the  thought  of 
the  divine  (TKrjvwixa  overshadows  that  of  the  Davidic  throne ; 
cf.  Rev.  21:  3. 

But  the  speech  leaves  no  manner  of  doubt  regarding  its 
conception  of  the  Solomonic  way  of  realizing  what  David 
had  sought.      Solomon's  act  was  a  supreme  illustration   of 

1  So  Heb.  8 :  5,  which  also  quotes  Ex.  25 :  40,  takes  not  the  temple  rites  and 
utensils  as  types,  but  those  of  the  tabernacle. 


272  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Israel's  habitual  " un circumcision  of  heart  and  ears."  There 
is  indeed  abundant  historical  ground  for  regarding  the  Solo- 
monic temple  on  Mount  Moriah  as  a  monument  of  tyrannical 
oppression,  which,  politically,  led  to  the  disruption  of  the 
kingdom  of  David;  religiously,  to  superstitious  dependence 
on  rites  and  ceremonies.  Yet  to  find  such  treatment  of  it  in 
a  biblical  writer  is  surprising  enough,  even  when  supported 
by  the  citation  from  Deutero-Isaiah :  "The  heaven  is  my 
throne,  and  the  earth  the  footstool  of  my  feet.  What  man- 
ner of  house  will  ye  build  me,  saith  the  Lord,  or  what  is 
the  place  of  my  rest?  Did  not  my  hand  make  all  these 
things  ? "  It  is  not  strange  even  that  Meyer  and  Wendt 
(Comm.  ad  loc.^  should  reject  almost  violently  the  interpre- 
tation of  vv.  48-50  by  Gfrorer,  Baur,  Zeller,  Ranch,  and 
Overbeck  as  meant  to  disparage  the  temple,  the  building  of 
which  is  represented  as  a  "corruption  of  the  worship  of  God 
in  its  own  nature  free,  bound  to  no  fixed  place  and  to  no 
rigid,  external  rites  "  (Zeller),  and  even  more,  when  Schneck- 
enburger  (^S't.  u.  Krit.  1855,  p.  528  ff.)  concurs,  ascribing  to 
the  speech  a  view  akin  to  Essenism.  The  idea  is  strange  to 
the  New  Testament.  But  so  is  that  of  the  covenant  of  the 
law  as  a  worship  of  angels,  imposed  "by  accommodation," 
which,  nevertheless,  appears  in  Paul,  in  Barnabas^  in  Justin. 
If  in  a  whole  family  of  writings  of  the  period  both  ideas  are 
found  associated,  their  strangeness  in  the  New  Testament 
only  proves  that  the  affinities  of  these  particular  chapters  are 
largely  outside  it.  Our  author  agrees  with  the  Clementine 
writer  that  the  temple-building  of  Solomon  was  "  an  act  of 
tyrannous  ambition,  perverting  a  place  of  prayer  into  a  dis- 
play of  royal  magnificence."  Herein  he  is  followed,  as  we 
know,  by  Barnabas,  who  explains  at  length  that  the  temple 
was  a  wretched  misunderstanding  of  the  promise  of  the  in- 
dwelling of  God  in  his  people's  hearts.  This  promise  is  now 
come  to  pass  inasmuch  as  the  outward  temple  was  first  "  abol- 
ished" by  Isaiah's  word  (as  in  Acts  7:  49  f.)  and  has  now 
been  destroyed  in  the  war,  whereas  the  true  habitatio  dei  is 
being  built  up  in  the  community  of  his  people.     "  For  God 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  273 

dwelleth  truly  in  our  habitation  within  us.  How  ?  .  .  .  He 
himself  prophesying  in  us  .  .  .  dwelling  in  us,  opening  for  us 
the  door  of  the  temple,  which  is  the  mouth  .  .  .  this  is  the 
spiritual  temple  built  up  to  the  Lord. "  ^  Admit  that  conceiv- 
ably both  Barnabas  and  the  Clementine  writer  might  have  taken 
the  idea  from  Acts,  even  so,  the  fact  that  they  so  understand  it 
is  no  slight  evidence  that  it  should  be  so  understood.  Add  now 
that  this  interpretation  is  in  line  with  the  course  of  thought  in 
the  speech  as  a  whole  and  that  all  its  ideas  are,  so  to  speak, 
"  constants  "  in  a  particular  stream  of  Christian  thought  of 
marked  individuality  and  firmly  rooted  in  a  well-known  pre- 
Christian  philosophy,  and  the  strangeness  (to  us)  of  the 
interpretation  tends  not  so  much  to  disprove  its  correctness 
as  to  discover  its  source.  We  have  already  referred  to  the 
peroration  of  the  speech,  vv.  51-53.  Take  the  anti-Jewish 
Alexandrian  standpoint  it  occupies  in  common  with  so  many 
writings  of  the  period  of  the  great  apologists,  and  nothing 
can  be  more  perfect  than  the  unity  of  the  discourse  and  the 
pertinence  of  each  successive  section  to  the  fundamental  idea. 
It  has  shown  by  a  review  of  the  Old  Testament  history  that 
the  true  interpretation  of  each  of  Israel's  fancied  preroga- 
tives, the  Inheritance  of  Abraham,  the  Oracles  of  God,  the 
Shekinah-presence,  is  the  inner,  that  witnessed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit;  and  that  the  reason  for  its  rejection  by  Israel  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  is  simply  that  they,  like  their  fathers,  are 
obdurate,  gross,  and  stiffnecked.  This  they  have  shown  not 
only  in  their  rejection  and  persecution  of  the  theocratic 
leaders  who  were  types  of  Messiah,  and  the  prophets  who 
foretold  the  coming  of  the  Just  One,  but  ultimately  by  the 
betrayal  and  murder  of  the  Messiah  himself.  Even  the  law 
which  they  had,  with  its  "types"  and  "testimonies,"  an 
ordinance  of  angels  only,  because  for  the  hardness  of  their 
hearts  they  could  not  receive  the  "living  oracles,"  nor  "serve 
God"  himself,  they  did  not  keep,  but  wandered  from  it  into 
absolute  heathenism  and  idolatry. ^ 

1  Abridged  from  Barn.  16. 

2  Such  in  Justin  Martyr,  Trypho  xix.,  is  the  sense  manifestly  given  to  this 
passage :   "  God  accommodating  himself  to  that  nation,  enjoined  them  also  to 

18 


274  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

But  turn  now  to  2  Esdras  14  :  30,  where  we  have  a  simi- 
lar denunciation,  "Hear,  O  Israel.  Our  fathers  at  the  be- 
ginning were  strangers  in  Egypt,  and  they  were  delivered 
from  thence,  and  received  the  law  of  life,  which  they  kept  not, 
which  ye  also  have  transgressed  after  them."  The  difference 
between  tliis  and  the  Christian  denunciation  of  Acts  7  :  38, 
53  is  just  here,  that  the  Christian  denies  that  the  law  actu- 
ally received  by  Israel  at  Sinai  was  a  "  law  of  life. "  "  For 
if  a  law  had  been  given  such  as  were  capable  of  giving  life, " 
says  Paul  (Gal.  3  :  21),  "  verily  justification  would  have  been 
of  the  law."  The  commandment  was  indeed  in  its  ultimate 
intention  "  unto  life, "  but  was  found  in  practical  working  to 
be  "  unto  death  "  (evpidr)  /lot  rj  ivToXrj  rj  eh  ^oarjv,  avrrj  et? 
ddvarov,  Rom.  7  :  10).  Barnabas  xiv.  1-4  ^  knows  of  such 
a  "law  of  life"  presented  at  Sinai,  but  not  "received." 
"  Yea,  verily,  but  as  regards  the  covenant  which  He  sware  to 
the  fathers  to  give  it  to  the  people,  let  us  see  whether  He 
hath  actually  given  it.  —  He  hath  given  it,  but  they  on  their 
part  were  not  found  worthy  to  receive  it  by  reason  of  their 
sins.  For  the  prophet  saith :  '  And  Moses  was  fasting  in 
Mount  Sinai  forty  days  and  forty  nights,  that  he  might 
receive  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  to  give  to  the  people. 
And  Moses  received  from  the  Lord  the  two  tables  which 
were  written  by  the  finger  of  the  hand  of  the  Lord  in  the 
spirit.'  And  Moses  took  them  and  brought  them  down  to 
give  them  to  the  people.  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses: 
'  Moses,  Moses,  come  down  quickly;  for  thy  people,  whom 
thou  leddest  forth  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  hath  done 
wickedly.  And  Moses  perceived  that  they  had  made  for 
themselves  again  molten  images.  And  he  cast  them  out  of 
his  hands,  and  the  tables  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  were 
broken  in  pieces.'  Moses  received  them,  but  they  on  their 
part  were  not  found  worthy.     But  how  did  we  receive  them  ? 

offer  sacrifices  as  if  to  his  name,  in  order  that  you  might  not  serve  idols.  Which 
precept,  however,  you  have  not  observed  :  nay,  you  sacrificed  your  children  to 
demons." 

1  Repeating  in  substance  what  he  had  previously  written  in  iv.  6-8. 


STEPHEN'S  SPEECH  275 

Mark  this.  Moses  received  them  being  a  servant  but,  the 
Lord  himself  gave  them  to  us  to  be  the  people  of  his 
inheritance." 

As  Christian  the  speech  of  Stephen  must  deny  with  Paul 
and  John  (John  5  :  39)  that  the  law  in  Israel's  possession  is 
\6<^La  ^wvra^  "living,"  or  "unto  life."  When  it  comes  to 
the  question  of  "  the  covenant  which  he  sware  to  the  fathers 
to  give  it  to  the  people,"  the  covenant  of  the  Xarpeia  Oeov, 
and  what  relation  the  actual  Mosaic  Xarpela  bears  to  the  law 
that  is  "unto  life,"  the  speech  of  Stephen  takes  the  side  of 
Barnabas.  It  makes  a  significant  modification  in  the  charge 
of  2  Esdras  14  :  30,  "  Your  fathers  received  the  law  of  life, 
which  they  kept  not, "  guarding  itself  from  the  implication, 
that  the  written  law  was  in  any  sense  "  unto  life  "  or  "  the 
law  of  life, "  by  declaring,  "  Ye  received  the  law  unto  ordi- 
nances of  angels,  and  kept  it  not,"  as  in  v.  38  it  purposely 
discriminated  the  \07ta  ^(ovra  from  the  \arpeia  actually 
instituted. 

Our  interpretation  of  Acts  7  :  53  thus  removes  it  from  the 
position  of  an  exception  to  all  other  early  Christian  refer- 
ences to  the  angelic  character  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation, 
which  uniformly  mark  its  inferiority.  As  in  Galatians  3  : 
19 ;  4  :  2,  3,  8-10  ;  Hebr.  2 :  2-5,  Barnabas  ix.  4,  the  Kerygma 
Petri,  Apology  of  Aristides,  Justin  Martyr,  this  tradition  is 
employed  to  prove  the  indirect,  imperfect  character  of  the 
Jewish  worship.  The  speech,  however,  undoubtedly  im- 
plies, as  Justin  expressly  and  repeatedly  teaches,^  that  how- 
ever inferior  a  substitute  for  the  \6<yLa  ^wvra  which  they 
might  have  had,  it  was  yet  the  duty  of  Israel  to  "  keep  " 
these  "ordinances  of  angels,"  until  the  coming  of  the 
"Prophet  like  unto  Moses,"  bringing  the  absolute  spiritual 
law.  It  takes,  in  other  words,  the  part  of  Philo  as  against 
those  whom  he  blames  for  regarding  their  insight  into  the 
external  character  of  the  ordinances  as  an  emancipation  from 
the  observance  of  them,  and  is  less  radical  than  Barnabas, 
the  Kerygma,  and  the  Clementines. 

1  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  xxvii.,  xlv.,  xlvi. 


276  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

The  problem  of  the  relation  of  the  Clementine  writings  to 
the  Ebionite  Gospel  on  the  one  side  and  to  the  Kerygma 
Petri  on  the  other,  of  the  latter  to  the  ' EvayeWcov  Ka& 
'E^paiov^.,  and  of  both  the  latter  to  the  Lucan  writings  is 
too  intricate  for  consideration  here.  That  some  relation 
exists  between  what  has  been  called  the  Ebionite  element 
of  Luke  and  the  Palestinian  Ebionite  writings  is  tolerably- 
clear.  That  these  so-called  Ebionite  sources  are  also  in 
decided  affinity  with  writings  of  such  undeniably  Alexan- 
drian derivation  as  Fs.  -Barnabas,  and  the  Kerygma  Petri,  — 
perhaps  we  should  add  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
—  and  that  Hebrews  and  certain  elements  of  the  Lucan  writ- 
ings, including  more  especially  Acts  6-8  and  related  sections 
of  both  "  treatises, "  display  a  similar  affinity,  it  is  hoped  will 
be  apparent  from  the  present  study  of  the  speech  of  Stephen 
in  its  argument  and  literary  relations. 


THE   MOHAMMEDAN   CONQUEST  OF 
EGYPT  AND  NORTH   AFRICA 

CHARLES  CUTLER  TORREY,   Ph.D. 

Professor  of  the  Semitic  Languages 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  OF  EGYPT 
AND  NORTH  AFRICA  IN  THE  YEARS  643 
TO  705  A.D. 

Translated  from  the  Original  Arabic  of  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem 

THE   HISTORY  AND   ITS   AUTHOR 

The  Arabic  history  from  which  the  following  extract  is 
taken  was  written  near  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  A.  D. 
Its  author,  Abu  '1-Qasim  'Abd  er-Rahman,  commonly  known 
as  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem,  was  a  native  of  Egypt,  and  died  in 
el-Fustat  in  the  year  871  A.  D.  His  father,  'Abd  Allah  ibn 
'Abd  el-Hakem,  held  the  office  of  qcidi  in  Egypt,  and  was 
himself  a  learned  man  and  much  interested  in  the  native 
traditions;  his  son  frequently  quotes  him  as  one  of  his 
authorities.  The  history,  entitled  the  Futuh  Misr,  or  Con- 
quest of  Egypt,  has  not  yet  been  published,  but  exists,  in 
more  or  less  complete  form,  in  manuscripts  found  in  the 
libraries  of  London,  Paris,  and  Leyden.  As  the  title  indi- 
cates, the  work  is  chiefly  concerned  with  the  Moslem  invasion 
of  the  land  in  the  seventh  century;  but  it  also  contains  a 
sketch  of  the  history  of  Egypt  from  the  earliest  times,  as  well 
as  important  chapters  dealing  with  the  Mohammedan  con- 
quest of  North  Africa  and  Spain.  Appended  to  the  history 
proper  is  a  collection  of  brief  biographies  of  the  qddis  of 
Egypt,  from  the  conquest  down  nearly  to  the  author's  own 
time ;  and  this,  again,  is  followed  by  a  list  of  the  Companions 
of  the  Prophet  who  came  to  Egypt,  with  the  traditions  com- 
monly attributed  to  each  of  them. 

The  literary  form  of  the  composition  is  that  which  was 
common  in  the  early  days  of   Arabic   historiography,  while 


280  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  interval  of  time  between  the  narrator  and  the  events 
narrated  was  still  comparatively  short ;  the  traditions  relating 
to  any  given  event  or  period  are  collected,  and  loosely  strung 
together,  great  emphasis  always  being  laid  on  the  unbroken 
chain  of  authorities,  or  isndd :  "  I  had  this  from  A,  who  heard 
it  from  B,  on  the  authority  of  C, "  and  so  on,  back  to  the  time 
of  the  chief  actors  themselves,  if  possible.  Some  of  the 
authorities  quoted  by  our  author,  such  as  Ibn  Lahi'a,  had 
made  extensive  collections  of  the  traditions  relating  to  Egypt 
and  Africa ;  but  the  Conquest  of  Egypt  is  the  earliest  work  of 
the  kind  that  has  come  down  to  us  —  it  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the 
oldest  of  all  the  Arabic  liistories,  of  any  kind,  that  have  been 
preserved. 

Our  author  cannot  be  accorded  high  rank  as  a  historian, 
however.  Both  in  the  choice  of  his  material  and  in  the  use 
of  it  he  shows  again  and  again  how  lightly  he  took  his  task, 
and  how  little  is  to  be  expected  from  him  in  the  way  of 
critical  judgment.  Especially  in  his  failure  to  distinguish 
the  important  from  the  trivial  he  falls  far  below  his  contem- 
porary, Beladhuri,  whose  history  of  the  Moslem  conquests 
bears  a  close  formal  resemblance  to  the  FutHh  Misr.  Never- 
theless, he  has  collected  a  great  many  interesting  traditions, 
including  some  important  material  not  to  be  found  elsewhere, 
and  his  work  deserves  to  be  read  and  studied,  especially  by 
those  who  are  interested  in  the  development  of  early  Moham- 
medan historiography. 

Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem  is  very  frequently  cited,  and  often  used 
extensively  without  express  citation,  by  later  writers,  and 
thus  a  considerable  part  of  his  history  has  become  common 
property.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  portion  of  the  work 
which  has  to  do  with  the  history  of  Egypt,  the  story  of  the 
invasion  under  'Amr,  the  minute  description  of  the  Moslem 
occupation  of  Alexandria,  and  so  on.  The  historian  el- 
Maqrizi,  especially,  has  made  a  large  part  of  this  material 
familiar.  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem 's  account  of  tlie  conquest  of 
Spain  has  been  made  accessible  to  English  readers  by  Jolni 
Harris  Jones,  who  published  (Gottingen,  1858)  the  Arabic 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  281 

text  according  to  the  two  Paris  manuscripts,  with  an  English 
translation  and  commentary.  A  French  translation  of  a  part 
of  the  section  dealing  with  the  invasion  of  the  province  Africa 
was  published  by  De  Slane  in  the  Journal  Asiatique  in  1844 
(second  half,  pp.  354-364),  and  afterwards  was  included,  with 
some  additions,  in  an  Appendix  to  his  translation  of  Ibn 
Khaldun's  History  of  the  Berbers  (Paris,  1852;  vol.  i.,  pp.  301- 
312).  A  Latin  version  of  a  small  portion  of  the  book  at  the 
beginning,  published  by  Karle  (Gottingen,  1856),  is  of  minor 
importance. 

The  section  chosen  for  the  present  translation  is  that  which 
is  included  between  the  account  of  the  Moslem  occupation  of 
Alexandria  and  the  neighboring  country  and  the  story  of  the 
conquest  of  Spain.  In  extent  it  constitutes  about  one-tenth 
of  the  whole  work,  and  the  part  of  the  history  which  it  in- 
cludes is  that  dealing  with  the  fortunes  of  the  Mohammedans 
in  Egypt  and  North  Africa  between  the  years  21  a.  h.  (642 
A.  D.),  the  year  after  that  in  which  'Amr  took  Alexandria, 
and  86  a.  h.  (705  A.  d.),  the  year  of  the  accession  of  the 
caliph  Welid  ibn  'Abd  el-Melik.  This  section  contains  some 
of  the  most  interesting  portions  of  the  author's  narrative,  and 
is  in  all  respects  a  characteristic  specimen  of  the  earliest 
Arabic  historical  composition. 

The  translation  is  based  on  a  text  obtained  from  the  four 
manuscripts  now  known  to  exist.  The  best,  and  probably 
the  oldest  one  of  these  is  in  the  British  Museum  in  London ; 
two  (one  very  old)  are  in  the  National  Library  in  Paris ;  and 
a  fourth,  bearing  another  title  and  wrongly  attributed  to  the 
later  writer  Suyuti,  has  quite  recently  been  discovered  by 
Professor  De  Goeje,  of  Leyden,  in  the  library  of  that  city. 
In  cases  where  the  manuscripts  disagree,  the  reading  of  the 
London  codex  is  almost  always  to  be  preferred ;  the  less  usual 
proper  names,  moreover,  are  generally  fully  and  correctly 
vocalized  in  this  manuscript.  The  isncids,  or  chains  of  attesta- 
tion, made  up  of  the  names  of  those  who  transmitted  each 
tradition,  I  have  generally  retained;  though  in  cases  where 
their  presence  in  the  text  would  be  especially  awkward,  they 


282  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

have  been  put  in  foot-notes.  A  few  explanatory  notes  have 
been  added.  The  number  of  these  might  have  been  con- 
siderably increased  with  profit,  had  the  limits  of  the  available 
space  permitted.  The  original  text  of  the  section  which  is 
here  translated  begins  in  the  London  manuscript  (Brit.  Mus. 
Stowe  Or.  6)  on  folio  Qb  b,  and  in  the  older  Paris  manuscript 
(No.  1686  in  Slane's  Catalogue)  on  folio  107  b. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  283 


THE  STORY  OF  THE  CONQUEST 

I 

EGYPT  UNDER  'AMR  IBN  EL-'ASfi 

1.    The  Conquest  of  M-FayyUm 

Aftee  2  the  Muslims  had  finished  the  conquest  [of  Alexan- 
dria], 'Amr^  sent  the  detachments  of  cavalry  into  the  sur- 
rounding villages,  and  thus  it  happened  that  el-Fayyum 
remained  unknown  to  the  army  for  the  space  of  a  year.  At 
length,  however,  a  man  came  and  told  them  of  it,  so  'Amr 
sent  with  him  Rabfa  ibn  Hobaish  ibn  'Orfuta,  of  the  tribe  of 
Sadif,  to  reconnoitre.  After  they  had  made  their  way  through 
el-Majaba  without  seeing  anything,  some  were  disposed  to 
turn  back,  but  others  said :  "  Be  not  too  hasty,  let  us  press 
on,  for  unless  we  trust  the  man,  he  cannot  bring  us  to  that 
which  we  seek."  When  they  had  journeyed  only  a  little 
further,  the  cultivated  fields  of  el-Fayyum  burst  on  their  view. 
So  they  fell  upon  them  at  once,  and  took  possession  without 
meeting  any  armed  resistance. 

Another  tradition  narrates,  on  the  contrary,  that  Malik  ibn 
N^'ima,  of  the   tribe   Sadif  (he  who  was  the  owner  of  el- 

1  This  superscription,  which  is  not  in  the  original,  I  have  added  for  convenience. 
The  narrative  which  follows  falls  into  three  well-marked  divisions:  (1)  Egypt 
and  the  neighboring  lands  until  the  death  of  'Amar ;  (2)  The  campaigns  under 
'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd ;  (3)  History  of  the  conquest  from  34  A.  H.  on.  See  the 
corresponding  superscriptions  below,  pages  301  and  315.  In  the  sequel,  all  the 
chapter-headings  printed  in  italics  are  translated  from  the  original  text,  unless 
the  contrary  is  stated. 

2  This  tradition,  says  our  author,  is  derived  mainly  from  Sa'id  ibn  'Ofair. 
*  I.  e.,  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi,  the  conqueror  of  Egypt. 


284  BIBLICAL   AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Ashqar  ^),  rode  forth  on  his  horse  to  explore  el-Ma jaba,  not 
knowing  what  was  beyond  it;  and  that  when  he  saw  the 
cultivated  land  of  el-Fayyiim,  he  returned  to  'Amr  with 
the    tidings. 

According  to  still  a  third  tradition,  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  sent 
Qais  ibn  el-Harith  into  Upper  Egypt;  so  he  journeyed  until 
he  came  to  what  is  now  el-Qais,  where  he  stayed;  whence  the 
place  received  its  name.  When  'Amr  became  impatient  at 
hearing  no  tidings  from  him,  Rabfa  ibn  Hobaish  said,  "I 
will  satisfy  thee, "  and  straightway  went  forth  on  his  mare 
and  rode  her  through  the  river;  then,  having  accomplished 
his  purpose,  he  returned  to  'Amr  with  his  report.  The  story 
has  it  that  he  rode  through  to  el-Fayyum  from  the  eastern 
side,  and  that  the  name  of  his  horse  was  el-A'm^.  God 
knows  best  which  of  these  accounts  is  the  true  one.^ 

'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  sent  out  also  Nafi'  ibn  'Abd  el-Qais  el- 
Fihri  (Nafi'  being  the  uterine  brother  of  el-'Asi  ibn  Wa'il) 
with  a  company,  and  their  horsemen  entered  Nubia  in  repeated 
summer  incursions,  like  those  which  the  Greeks  ^  were  accus- 
tomed to  make.  This  went  on  until  the  time  when  'Amr 
was  removed  from  the  command  over  Egypt,  and  was  suc- 
ceeded by  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Abi  Sarh,  who  made  terms  with 
the  natives,  —  as  I  shall  narrate  in  the  proper  place,  if  God 
permits.* 

2.    The  Conquest  of  Barca  ^ 

The  Berbers,  it  is  said,  once  lived  in  Palestine,  and  their 
king   was  Jillut;^   but   when    David  (blessed   be  his  name) 

1  The  name  of  a  horse  celebrated  in  the  narratives  of  this  conquest. 

*  Here  follows,  in  all  the  manuscripts,  the  superscription  The  Conquest  of 
Barca,  which  is,  however,  not  in  place  until  after  the  next  paragraph.  This  is  a 
good  illustration  of  the  fact,  which  appears  also  plainly  in  other  places  (see,  e.  g., 
page  315),  that  tliese  chapter-headings  were  not  in  the  history  in  its  original  form. 

8  Er-lium  denoting  Byzantine  subjects,  as  usual. 

*  See  below,  page  308. 

6  See  the  note  above.  In  this  ca.se,  the  superscription  (originally  written 
either  at  tlie  top  of  a  sheet  or  in  the  margin)  was  accidentally  inserted  in  the 
wrong  place. 

«  I.  e.,  Goliath. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  285 

killed  him,  the  Berbers  emigrated,  journeying  westward  until 
they  came  to  Lubiya  and  Muraqiya,^  which  are  two  districts 
belonging  to  the  western  part  of  Egypt;  countries  which 
drink  the  rain  of  heaven,  and  are  not  blessed  ^  by  the  Nile. 
There  they  scattered:  the  tribes  of  Zenata  and  Maghila 
moved  westward  and  dwelt  in  the  mountains ;  Luwata  came 
and  dwelt  in  the  district  of  Ant^bulus^  (that  is,  Barca), 
and  thence  were  scattered  over  this  part  of  North  Africa, 
spreading  in  it  as  far  as  es-Sus ;  Hawwara  settled  in  the  city 
Lebda;  and  the  territory  occupied  by  Nefusa  included  the 
city  Sabra,  the  Greeks  who  were  living  in  it  being  forced 
to  emigrate.  Thus  the  Divisions  *  were  made,  and  remained ; 
and  they  became  subject  to  the  Greeks,  paying  tribute  to 
those  who  conquered  their  land. 

'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  advanced  with  his  horsemen  until  he 
reached  Barca,  and  there  made  a  treaty  with  its  people  on 
condition  of  their  paying  him  a  poll-tax  of  thirteen  thousand 
dinars,  with  the  stipulation  that  they  might  sell  such  of  their 
children  as  they  pleased,  to  make  up  the  amount.^  In  those 
days,  no  collector  of  the  ground-tax  entered  Barca;  the 
people  merely  sent  their  poll-tax  when  the  time  for  it  arrived. 
'Amr  also  sent  'Oqba  ibn  Nafi'  as  far  as  Zawila,  so  that  all 
between  Barca  and  Zawila  came  into  the  hands  of  the 
Muslims. 

3.    The  Conquest  of  Itrdhulus  ^ 

'Amr  then  advanced  until  he  halted  at  Itr§.bulus,  in  the 
year  22.^     He  encamped  before  the  dome  which  rises  above 

1  Thus  pointed  in  the  manuscripts. 

2  Here  there  is  a  play  upon  words,  the  verb  nal  being  used. 
8  Derived  from  the  Greek  Pentapolis. 

*  Arabic,  el-afdriq ;  the  Muslim  writers  deriving  the  name  "  Africa  "  (Afriqii/a) 
from  the  root  faraq,  used  twice  in  this  context  a  few  lines  above,  and  translated 
"  scatter." 

6  Here  several  brief  traditions  are  added  in  support  of  the  statements  just 
made.     I  have  omitted  them  as  unimportant  for  the  present  translation. 

8  Or,  Tarabulus ;  the  Arabic  form  of  the  Greek  Tripolis. 

'  That  is,  the  year  643  a.  d.  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem  here  mentions  another 
tradition,  according  to  which  the  conquest  of  Tripoli  took  place  in  the  year  23. 


286  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  battlements  on  the  eastern  side,  and  besieged  the  city  for 
a  month  without  gaining  any  advantage.  Then,  one  day,  it 
happened  that  a  man  of  the  Bani  Mudlij,  in  'Amr's  army, 
went  out  hunting  with  seven  companions.  They  passed 
around  the  west  side  of  the  city  until  they  were  far  away 
from  the  army.  Then,  as  they  were  returning,  the  heat  be- 
came oppressive,  and  in  seeking  shelter  from  it  they  followed 
along  the  shore.  Now  the  sea  came  up  close  to  the  wall  of 
the  city,  and  on  the  side  directly  opposite  the  water  there 
was  no  wall,  but  the  vessels  of  the  Greeks  lay  at  their 
anchorages  close  to  the  houses.  As  the  Mudliji  and  his  com- 
panions looked,  they  saw  that  the  water  had  fallen  here,  and 
soon  found  a  place  where  the  city  could  be  entered,  the  water 
having  subsided  from  it.  So  they  entered,  passing  through 
until  they  came  to  the  neighborhood  of  the  church,  where 
they  raised  the  tekbir.^  Now  the  Greeks  had  no  means  of 
escape  excepting  their  boats ;  and  as  'Amr,  as  soon  as  he  saw 
this  opening  into  the  heart  of  the  city,  brought  up  his  army 
and  burst  in  upon  them,  only  those  got  away  who  could 
embark  at  once  in  light  craft.     So  'Amr  plundered  the  city. 

Now  the  people  of  Sabra  had  been  preparing  to  stand  a 
siege  (the  name  of  the  cit}'  was  formerly  Nibara,  Sabra  being 
the  old  market,  which  was  transferred  to  the  city  Nibara 
by  'Abd  er-RahmSn  ibn  Habib  in  the  year  31), ^  and  when 
they  heard  how  'Amr  had  besieged  Itrabulus  without  making 
any  impression  on  it,  and  that  he  could  gain  no  advantage 
there,  they  were  filled  with  confidence.  So  as  soon  as  'Amr 
had  taken  possession  of  Itrabulus,  he  sent  out  a  strong  de- 
tachment of  cavalry  that  same  night  with  the  order  to  ride  at 
full  speed.  Arriving  at  Sabra  in  the  morning,  they  found 
that  the  inhabitants  were  off  their  guard,  and  had  opened  the 
gates  to  drive  out  their  cattle  to  pasture.  So  they  entered, 
and  not  one  of  the  enemy  escaped,  and  all  the  spoil  of  the 

1  The  Muslim  battle-cry,  "  Allah  albar  !  " 

2  In  the  text  of  all  the  manuscripts,  this  gloss  is  in  the  wrong  place,  being  in- 
serted a  line  below,  after  the  name  Itrabulus  (!).  As  for  the  date,  a.  h.  31,  it  ia 
evidently  a  mistake  for  131. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  287 

city  was  secured.     Then  they  returned  to  'Amr  with  their 
plunder. 

A  tradition  of  Abu  '1-Aswad,  Nadr  ibn  'Abd  el-Jabbar, 
derived  from  Ibn  Lahfa,  from  el-Harith  ibn  Yezid,  reports 
Abu  Temim  the  JaishSnite  as  saying :  We  were  with  'Amr  ibn 
el-'Asi  when  he  made  his  expedition  against  Itrabulus,  and 
when  the  council  was  made  up,  one  of  our  associates  in  it  was 
Hobaib  ibn  Moghfil.  We  were  speaking  of  the  observance  of 
the  fast  of  Ramadan,^  when  Hobaib  said,  "There  is  to  be  no 
partition  of  the  booty."  But  'Amr  answered  him,  "Never 
fear  that  there  will  be  no  division  as  soon  as  I  have  reckoned 
the  amount." 

4.    'Amr^s  Request  for  Permission  to  Invade  Africa 

Then  'Amr  wished  to  move  westward ;  so  he  wrote  to  [the 
caliph]  'Omar  ibn  el-Khatt^b  as  follows r^  "Now  that  God 
Almighty  has  conquered  Itrabulus  for  us,  we  are  only  nine 
days  distant  from  Africa;^  so  if  the  Commander  of  the 
Faithful  desires  that  we  should  invade  the  land,  and  that  God 
should  deliver  it  into  our  hands,  he  has  only  to  say  the 
word."  But 'Omar  wrote  in  reply:  "Nay,  it  is  not 'Africa, ' 
but '  Maf riqa, '  *  betraying  and  betrayed.  No  one  shall  invade 
it,  so  long  as  I  live!"^  Just  then  there  came  into  'Amr's 
hands  the  letter  from  the  Moqauqis  informing  him  that  the 
Greeks  were  on  the  point  of  breaking  their  treaty  and  annul- 
ling the  agreements  they  had  made  with  him.^  'Amr  had 
made  the  Moqauqis  promise  not  to  keep  from  him  anything 
that  might  happen;   so  when  he  received  these  tidings,  he 

1  The  connection  between  the  close  of  Kamad^n  and  the  enjoyment  of  the 
booty  is  obvious. 

2  The  tradition  is  that  of  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama,  from  Ibn  Lahi'a,  from 
Ibn  Hubaira,  from  AbH  Temim  of  Jaishan. 

8  By  "  Africa  "  the  province  of  that  name  is  intended,  of  course,  thronghout 
this  history. 

4  I.  e.,  "  place  of  scattering,  dispersion."    See  above,  page  285, 

5  Two  other  brief  traditions  to  the  same  effect  are  added  here.  I  have  omitted 
them  as  unimportant. 

*  As  narrated  in  an  earlier  part  of  this  same  history. 


288  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

turned  back  in  haste.     He  had,  however,  already  sent  out 
some  companies  of  horse,  which  had  brought  back  boot3\ 


5.    The  Removal  of  'Amr  from  the  Command  in  Egypt 

Then  followed  the  death  of  'Omar  (God's  mercy  upon 
him);  the  date  of  its  occurrence,  according  to  Yahya  ibn 
Bukair,  on  the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  being  the  year 
23.  At  that  time,  Egypt  was  under  two  Muslim  governors ; 
'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  himself  in  the  lower  part  of  the  country,  and 
'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa  d  ibn  Abi  Sarh  in  the  Sa  td.i  So  when 
'Othman  ibn  'Affan  (God's  mercy  upon  him)  succeeded  to  the 
caliphate  (as  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Salih,  or  some  one  else,  narrates 
on  the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd),  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi, 
thinking  that  he  could  rely  on  ' Othman' s  favor,  determined 
to  get  him  to  remove  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  from  the  command 
of  Upper  Egypt.  So  he  waited  on  him,  and  made  this  re- 
quest. But  'Othman  replied:  '"Omar  ibn  el-Khattab  put 
him  in  command  of  the  Sa'id,  although  there  was  between 
them  neither  sacred  obligation  nor  other  special  connection. 
Now  thou  knowest  that  he  is  my  own  brother  from  the 
breasts ;  how  then  should  I  remove  him  from  that  which  an- 
other has  already  given  him  ?  "  He  said  further  than  this, 
according  to  the  tradition  of  Sa'id  ibn  'Ofair,  "  Thou  mindest 
not  what  his  mother  was  wont  to  do  for  me ;  how  she  hid  for 
me  in  her  sleeve  the  choice  bits  of  meat,  until  I  should  come." 
But  'Amr  was  angry  at  this,  and  said:  "I  will  not  return 
unless  ray  request  is  granted."  So  'Othman  wrote  to  'Abd 
Allah  ibn  Sa'd,  making  him  the  governor  of  all  Egypt.  The 
letter  reached  him  in  el-Fayyum ;  according  to  Ibn  'Ofair,  in 
a  village  there  called  Damusha.^     He  at  once  offered  to  give 

1  Our  historian  records  here  another  tradition,  derived  from  Sa'id  ibn  'Ofair, 
according  to  which  the  caliph  'Omar  had  assigned  to  'Abd  Allah  only  el-Fayydm 
of  the  Sa'id. 

2  This  last  statement  is  corrected  by  Ibn  Qodaid,  the  scholar  who  transmitted 
this  history  from  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem  himself,  the  correction  occurring  in  a  note  in- 
serted at  this  point  in  the  MSS.  of  London,  Paris  (the  second),  and  Leyden.    The 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  289 

a  sum  of  money  to  the  people  of  Atwab  if  they  would  bring 
him  in  his  boat  to  el-Fustat  before  daybreak.  (What  he 
offered  them,  according  to  the  account  current  in  his  own 
family,  was  five  dinars.)  So  they  went  with  him  to  el-Fustat, 
arriving  before  dawn.  Thereupon  he  sent  for  the  muezzin, 
and  opened  the  morning  prayer  at  the  first  break  of  day. 
Now  'Abd  Allah,  'Amr's  son,  was  waiting  for  the  muezzin  to 
summon  him  to  lead  the  morning  prayer,  for  he  was  occupy- 
ing his  father's  place ;  when  he  therefore  had  become  impa- 
tient at  the  delay,  some  one  told  him  that  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd 
was  conducting  the  worship.  (In  the  family  of  'Abd  Allah 
[ibn  Sa'd]  the  story  is  current  that  the  latter  approached  the 
mosque  from  the  western  side,  with  a  candle  borne  before 
him,  just  as  'Abd  Allah  ibn  'Amr,  also  with  a  candle,  ap- 
proached from  the  direction  of  his  house,  and  that  the  two 
candles  met  at  the  qihla.^  So  'Abd  Allah  ibn  'Amr  went  and 
confronted  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd,  and  said  to  him,  "  This  is  thy 
false  dealing,  and  thine  intriguing !  "  But  the  other  replied : 
"  What  have  I  done  ?  Thou  and  thy  father  have  been  covet- 
ing the  Sa'id  from  me ;  come  now,  let  me  put  thee  over  the 
Sa'id,  and  thy  father  over  Lower  Egypt,  and  see  if  I  will 
envy  you  the  possession  of  them !  "  So  from  that  time  on, 
'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  remained  the  amir  of  Egj'-pt,  and  his 
rule  gave  general  satisfaction.  He  also  made  three  important 
military  expeditions,  into  Africa,  against  the  blacks  [of 
Nubia],  and  to  Dhu  's-Sawari;  these  I  shall  describe  in  the 
proper  place,  if  God  wills  it. 

The  date  of  'Amr's  removal  from  Egypt,  and  the  accession 
of  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd,  according  to  the  tradition  of  Yahya 
ibn  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Bukair  on  the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn 
Sa'd,  was  the  year  25. 

name  of  the  village  was  Shadmuwa,  for  which  Damflsha  was  carelessly  substituted 
through  a  scribal  error. 


19 


290  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC   STUDIES 

6.    The  Violation  of  the  Treats/  hy  the  Alexandrians 

Now  the  people  of  Alexandria  had  broken  their  treaty,  as 
has  already  been  said.^  The  Greeks,  with  Manwil  [Manuel] 
the  Eunuch  at  their  head,  came  in  their  ships  and  anchored 
off  Alexandria,  and  all  the  Greeks  who  were  in  the  city  joined 
hands  with  them.  The  Moqauqis,  however,  gave  them  no 
encouragement  and  committed  no  breach  of  faith.  In  the 
meantime,  as  already  narrated,  the  caliph  'Othman  had  de- 
posed 'Amr  and  given  the  command  to  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd. 
But  when  the  Greek  army  appeared  before  Alexandria,  the 
people  of  Egypt  besought  'Othman  to  retain  'Amr  in  com- 
mand until  he  should  finish  the  conflict  with  the  Greeks,  inas- 
much as  he  was  skilled  in  warfare  and  dreaded  by  the  enemy. 
So  he  granted  their  request.  Alexandria  was  then  sur- 
rounded by  its  wall;  but  'Amr  swore  that  if  God  would  give 
him  the  victory  over  them,  he  would  break  down  their  wall, 
and  make  the  city  like  the  house  of  a  harlot,  accessible  from 
all  sides. 2  So  he  began  operations  against  them,  both  by  land 
and  by  sea. 

Another  (not  el-Laith)  narrates :  Then  those  of  the  Copts 
who  held  with  the  Moqauqis  took  refuge  with  him ;  as  for  the 
Greeks,  he  had  none  of  them  in  his  following.  Kharija  ibn 
Hodhafa  said  therefore  to 'Amr:  "Attack  them,  before  they 
become  strongly  re-enforced,  for  there  is  no  certainty  that  all 
Egypt  may  not  join  in  the  rebellion. "  But  'Amr  said :  "  Nay, 
but  I  will  challenge  them  to  come  out  against  me ;  for  they 
will  come  into  conflict  with  all  whom  they  pass  on  the  way, 
and  thus  God  will  discomfit  the  one  part  by  means  of  the 
other."  So  they  [the  Greeks]  came  forth  from  Alexandria, 
and  with  them  those  of  the  people  of  the  surrounding  coun- 
try wlio  had  joined  the  revolt ;  and  they  began  encamping  in 

1  See  above,  page  287.  The  present  tradition  is  derived  (our  author  says) 
from  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Salih,  on  the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  who  had  it  from 
Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib. 

■-  This  history  contains  many  examples  of  the  pungent  sayings  for  which  'Amr 
was  famous. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  291 

one  village  after  another,  drinking  its  wine  and  eating  up  its 
food,  and  carrying  off  as  plunder  whatever  they  came  across ; 
nor  did  'Amr  confront  them  until  they  reached  Naqyus. 
There  the  battle  was  joined,  both  on  the  land  and  on  the 
water.  The  Greeks  and  Gopts  opened  the  fight  by  a  sharp 
fire  of  arrows  directed  at  the  river,  and  an  arrow  soon  struck 
'Amr's  horse  in  the  throat  (although  he  was  on  the  land)  and 
rolled  him  on  the  ground;  'Amr  alighted  safely,  however. 
Then  those  [of  the  Muslims]  who  were  fighting  on  the  water 
came  out  and  joined  their  fellows  who  were  on  the  land;  but 
the  Greeks  poured  such  a  shower  of  arrows  upon  them  that 
they  gave  ground  a  little,  whereupon  the  enemy  made  an 
attack  before  which  the  Muslims  retreated,  and  Sharik  ibn 
Sumai  fled  on  his  horse. 

Now  the  Greeks  were  drawn  up  in  successive  ranks,  one 
behind  the  other,  and  there  came  forth  from  them  a  certain 
ofiicer  ^  of  their  army  —  one  of  those  who  had  come  from  the 
land  of  the  Greeks  on  this  expedition  —  mounted  on  his  horse 
and  armed  with  gilded  weapons,  and  called  for  an  opponent 
to  meet  him  in  single  combat.  There  stood  forth  in  answer 
to  the  challenge  a  man  of  the  tribe  Zubaid,  named  Haumal, 
whose  hunya"^  was  Abu  Madhhaj.  The  two  fought  with 
spears,  driving  each  other  about,  for  some  time ;  at  last  the 
hitriq  threw  away  his  spear  and  took  his  sword,  and  Haumal, 
whose  valor  was  well  known  in  the  army,  did  the  same. 
Then  'Amr  began  shouting,  "  O  Abu  Madhhaj !  "  and  Haumal 
shouted  back,  "  At  thy  service !  "  while  the  two  armies  stood 
on  the  bank  of  the  Nile  looking  on,  drawn  up  in  their  ranks 
and  rows.  So  the  two  circled  about  each  other  for  a  while, 
with  their  swords;  then  the  Greek  made  a  rush  upon  Haumal 
and  lifted  him  bodily  (for  he  was  a  man  of  slender  build), 
but  the  Muslim  drew  a  dagger  which  was  in  his  girdle  or  in 
his  sleeve,  and  drove  it  with  all  his  force  into  the  neck  of  the 
barbarian,  who  fell  dead,  Haumal  falling  upon  him.  He  then 
stripped  him  of  his  spoil ;  but  he  himself  died  only  a  few  days 

1  In  the  original,  hitrifj,  a  word  derived  from  the  Greek  patrikios. 

2  The  nickname  used  in  familiar  intercourse. 


292  BIBLICAL   AND  SEMITIC   STUDIES 

after  (God's  mercy  upon  him).  'Amr  is  said  to  have  placed 
his  own  couch  in  front  of  the  two  posts  of  Haumal's  bier, 
keeping  it  there  until  he  was  carried  out  to  be  buried  in  the 
Moqattam.i 

Then  the  Muslims  made  a  fierce  attack,  and  the  enemy 
were  routed,  the  Muslims  pursuing  until  they  overtook  them 
in  Alexandria.  So  God  gave  his  people  the  victory  over  the 
enemy ;  moreover,  Manwil  the  Eunuch  fell  in  the  fight. 

According  to  the  tradition  of  el-Haitham  ibn  Ziyad,  'Amr 
continued  the  slaughter  to  the  neglect  of  the  spoil  of  the  city ; 
some  one  reminding  him  of  this,  he  gave  the  order  to  raise 
the  sword  [i.  e.,  cease  from  the  fight].  A  mosque  was  after- 
wards built  on  the  spot  where  he  raised  the  sword ;  it  is  the 
mosque  in  Alexandria  which  is  now  called  the  Mosque  of  er- 
Rahma  [i.  e.,  of  Mercy],  so  named  because  of  this  circum- 
stance. As  for  the  wall  of  the  city,  'Amr  razed  the  whole 
of  it. 

Then  he  collected  the  booty  which  had  been  taken;  and 
when  he  had  done  so,  there  came  to  him  some  of  the  people 
of  the  villages  which  had  not  broken  faith,  saying:  "We  re- 
mained true  to  our  compact;  so  when  these  robbers  [the 
Greek  army]  passed  by  us,  they  took  our  household  goods 
and  our  beasts  of  burden,  and  now  these  things  are  in  your 
hands."  So  'Amr  returned  to  them  all  of  the  property  which 
they  recognized  and  of  which  they  could  prove  their  owner- 
ship. Then  one  of  them  said  to  him :  "  How  was  it  right  for 
thee  to  treat  us  as  thou  didst?  We  were  entitled  to  thy 
protection  from  the  enemy,  for  we  are  thine  allies,  and  have 
remained  faithful.  As  for  those  who  have  broken  their 
compact,  may  God  cast  them  away !  "  Then  'Amr  regretted 
what  he  had  done,  and  said:  "I  wish  now  that  I  had  met 
the  Greeks  when  they  first  came  forth  from  the  city." 

A  tradition  of  llayat  ibn  Sharik,  from  el-Hasan  ibn 
Thuban,  from  Hisham  ibn  AM  Roqayya,  asserts  that  this 
revolt  of  Alexandria  was  brought  about  in  the  following  way : 
The  chief  man  of  Akhnu  came  to  'Amr  and   said  to  him: 

i  The  hill  southeast  of  the  modern  city  of  Cairo,  then  el-Fustat. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  293 

"  Tell  us  the  amount  of  the  poll-tax  upon  each  one  of  us,  so 
that  we  may  be  prepared  for  it."  But  'Amr  replied,  pointing 
to  the  foundation  of  the  church,  "If  thou  should'st  give  me 
[a  heap  reaching]  from  the  foundation  to  the  roof,  I  could 
not  tell  thee.  Ye  are  simply  a  store-house  for  us ;  when  we 
need  much,  ye  must  give  us  much ;  when  we  need  less,  we 
exact  less  from  you."  The  man  was  angry  at  this,  and  went 
away  to  the  Greeks,  with  whom  he  returned.  When  God 
routed  them,  this  Nabataean  ^  was  taken  captive  and  brought 
to  'Amr.  Those  present  advised  putting  him  to  death,  but 
'Amr  said:  "By  no  means  I  Begone,  and  bring  us  another 
army!  " 

Sa'id  ibn  Sabiq  narrates  that  the  name  of  this  man  was 
Talma,  and  that  'Amr,  when  he  was  brought  into  his  pres- 
ence, put  a  bracelet  on  his  arm  and  a  diadem  on  his  head,  and 
clothed  him  with  a  purple  burnus,  and  said  to  him,  "  Bring 
us  the  like  of  these !  "  So  he  made  no  further  trouble  about 
the  poll-tax.  Some  one  asking  him,  "What  if  thou  hadst 
been  brought  before  the  Greek  emperor?"  he  replied,  "I 
should  have  been  a  dead  man ;  for  he  would  have  said,  '  Thou 
hast  slain  my  people. '  " 

7.    The  Destruction  of  Khirhet  Werddn 

While  'Amr  was  on  his  way  to  Alexandria, ^  he  destroyed 
the  village  which  is  now  called  Khirbet  Werdan.  There  are 
conflicting  traditions  (says  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem)  as  to  the 
reason  for  his  destroying  it.  According  to  Sa'id  ibn  'Of air: 
When  'Amr  was  on  his  way  to  Naqyus  to  join  battle  with  the 
Greeks,^  Werdan  turned  aside  at  daybreak  on  business  of 
his  own,  and  the  people  of  the  place  seized  him  and  carried 
him  off.  When  'Amr  missed  him,  and  made  search  for  him, 
he  followed  the  traces  until  he  found  him  in  one  of  their 
houses,  whereupon  he  ordered  the  place  to  be  laid  waste  and 
its  people  to  remove  from  it. 

1  The  name  used  merely  as  a  term  of  contempt. 

2  I.  e.,  during  this  expedition  to  put  down  the  revolt  of  the  city. 
^  See  above,  page  291. 


294  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

According  to  ' Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama :  The  people  of 
the  place  were  all  monks ;  and  they  dealt  treacherously  with 
some  of  the  men  of  'Amr's  rear  guard,  and  killed  them,  after 
'Amr  had  reached  el-Keryun.  So  he  sent  against  them 
Werdan,  who  slew  them  and  laid  waste  the  village,  which 
lies  in  ruins  to  the  present  day. 

According  to  my  father,  'Abd  Allah  ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem: 
The  people  of  the  place  were  brigands  and  villains ;  so  'Amr 
sent  to  their  district  and  brought  from  it  a  sack  containing 
some  of  the  earth  of  their  soil.  Then  he  summoned  them  and 
made  overtures  to  them,  but  they  returned  him  no  satisfac- 
tory answer.  He  ordered  them  to  be  led  out  of  his  presence 
for  a  moment,  and  calling  for  the  sack  of  earth,  he  sprinkled 
some  of  it  under  his  prayer-carpet,  and  sat  upon  it.  Then 
he  called  them  back  and  talked  with  them,  and  they  complied 
with  all  his  wishes.  Then  [after  sending  them  out]  he 
ordered  the  earth  to  be  taken  away,  and  again  summoned 
them,  but  they  gave  him  no  satisfaction.  This  he  did  several 
times ;  and  said,  when  he  saw  the  result,  "  This  is  a  village 
which  needs  to  be  trampled  upon."  So  he  gave  orders  to 
have  it  laid  waste.  God  knows  best  which  of  these  traditions 
is  right. 

8.    Further  Traditions  relating  to  tJiis  Campaign^ 

After  God  had  thus  discomfited  the  Greeks, 2  [the  caliph] 
'Othman  wished  to  have  'Amr  take  charge  of  the  military 
operations  in  Egypt,  while  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  took  the 
taxes  of  the  land.  But  'Amr  said,  "  Then  1  should  be  like 
one  who  holds  a  cow  by  the  horns  while  another  milks  her." 
So  he  declined. 

'Abd  Allah  ibn  Yezid  el-Muqri  narrates,  on  the  authorit}' 
of  Harmala  ibn 'Imran,  that  Teniim  ibn  Fira' el-Mahri  said : 
I  was  present  at  the  second  conquest  of  Alexandria,  but  no 

1  There  is  in  tlie  original  no  superscription  at  this  point,  but  one  is  evidently 
needed. 

2  Here  (says  our  author)  is  resumed  the  main  tradition,  given  by  Ibn  Lahi'a 
from  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  295 

portion  of  the  spoil  was  given  to  me  for  some  time,  until  it 
almost  came  to  open  conflict  between  my  people  and  tribe  of 
Qoraish.  But  somebody  said :  "  Send  to  Abu  Basra  of  the 
tribe  of  Ghifar,  and  'Oqba  ibn  'Amir  of  the  tribe  of  Juhaina, 
who  were  both  among  the.  Companions  of  the  Prophet,  and 
ask  them  about  the  matter."  So  they  sent  and  asked  them, 
and  they  replied:  "See  whether  he  has  attained  to  manhood, 
and  if  so,  give  him  an  allotment."  So  when  some  of  them 
had  observed  me  and  seen  that  I  was  no  longer  a  boy,  but  a 
man,  they  gave  me  my  portion. 

According  to  a  tradition  of  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama, 
derived  from  Ibn  Wahb,  from  Musa  ibn  'Olai,  from  his 
father,  from  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  himself,  the  second  conquest 
of  Alexandria  was  made  by  force  of  arms,^  in  the  caliphate 
of  'Othman  ibn  'Affan,  after  the  death  of  'Omar  ibn  el- 
Khattab.  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  also  states,  on  the 
authority  of  Ibn  Lahfa,  that  the  first  conquest  of  the  city 
was  in  the  year  21,  and  that  the  second  was  in  the  year  25, 
four  years  later.  Yahya  ibn  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Bukair,  rely- 
ing on  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  gives  for  the  date  of  the  former 
conquest  the  year  22,  and  for  the  latter  the  year  25. 

A  tradition  not  recorded  by  Ibn  Lahfa  ^  states  that  the 
removal  of  'Amr  from  Egypt  by  'OthmSn,  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd,  took  place  a  month  after  the 
[second]  conquest  of  Alexandria. 

Another  tradition,  not  given  by  Ibn  Lahi'a,  but  recorded 
by  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib,  narrates  that  the  people  of  el-Khis, 
belonging  to  el-Bima,  —  a  part  of  the  swamps  and  thickets 
included  in  the  conquest,  —  continued  fighting  the  Muslims 
for  seven  years  after  Egypt  had  been  conquered. 

9.    'Amr^s  Visits  to  the  Oaliph  'Omar 

A  tradition  of  'Othman  ibn  Salih,  obtained  from  el-Laith 
ibn  Sa'd,  states  that  'Omar  ibn  el-Khattab  lived  three  years 

1  The  question  whether  any  given  city  or  land  was  taken  "  by  force  "  or  "  by 
treaty  of  peace"  was  of  great  importance  in  determining  its  future  status  in  the 
Mohammedan  domain,  especially  in  regard  to  its  tribute  and  taxes. 

2  Whose  work  our  author  is  following  in  the  main,  in  this  part  of  his  history- 


296  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

after  the  conquest  of  Egypt,  ^  and  that  during  that  time  'Amr 
paid  him  two  visits.  On  one  of  these  occasions,  according  to 
Ibn  'Of air,  he  appointed  in  his  place  Zakariya  ibn  el-Johm  el- 
'Abdari  to  take  charge  of  the  army,  and  Mujahid  ibn  Jebr,  a 
client  of  the  Bani  Naufal  ibn  'Abd  Menaf,  to  take  charge  of 
the  land-tax.  (Mujahid  was  the  grandfather  of  Mo'adh  ibn 
Musa  en-Neffat,  who  was  the  father  of  Ishaq  ibn  Mo'adh, 
the  poet.)  When  'Omar  asked  him  whom  he  had  appointed 
in  his  jjlace,  and  'Amr  named  Mujahid  ibn  Jebr,  the  caliph 
asked,  "Dost  thou  mean  the  freedman  of  the  daughter  of 
Ghazwan?"  "Yes,"  was  the  reply,  "he  is  a  scribe."  Then 
said  'Omar,  "Truly,  the  qalam^  elevates  [the  station  of]  him 
who  wields  it."  (This  daughter  of  Ghazwan  was  the  sister 
of  'Otba  ibn  Ghazwan,  who  was  in  the  battle  of  Bedr.  By 
the  tradition  of  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Hisham,  from  Ziyad  ibn 
'Abd  Allah,  from  Mohammed  ibn  IshSq,  the  line  of  descent 
was  as  follows :  'Otba  ibn  Ghazwan  ibn  Jabir  ibn  Wahb  ibn 
Nusaib  ibn  Malik  ibn  el-Harith  ibn  Mazin  ibn  Mos'ab  ibn 
'Ikrima  ibn  Khasafa^  ibn  Qais  ibn  Ghailan,  the  covenant- 
associate  of  the  Bam  Naufal  ibn  'Abd  Menaf.  The  place 
where  Mujahid  ibn  Jebr  settled  [in  Alexandria]  was  the  house 
of  Salih,  the  one  from  whom  the  street  received  its  name.) 

On  the  occasion  of  the  second  visit,  'Amr  left  in  his  place 
his  son  'Abd  Allah.*  The  following  story  of  this  visit  is  told 
by  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  INIaslama  and  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Salih,  on 
the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  on  that  of  Yezid  ibn  Abt 
Habib:  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  entered  the  presence  of  'Omar  when 
the  latter  was  at  his  table,  sitting  cross-legged,  with  his  com- 
panions about  him  in  the  same  attitude,  while  in  the  dish 
before  them  there  was  hardly  enough  for  one  of  the  company.^ 
'Amr  greeted  the  caliph,  and  the  latter  returned  the  salclm^ 

1  See  also  the  statement  above,  page  295. 

2  The  reed-pen  used  in  writing. 

8  Thus  written  and  pointed  in  the  London  MS.  In  the  older  of  the  two  Paris 
MSS.  the  name  has  been  written  over  and  is  illegible ;  in  the  other  it  is  written 
"  Hafsa." 

*  This,  as  our  author  tells  us,  continues  the  tradition  of  Sa'id  ibn  'Ofair, 

*  The  usual  story  of  'Omar's  extreme  simplicity  of  life. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN   CONQUEST  297 

exclaiming,  "'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi!  "  "Yes,"  was  the  reply. 
Then  'Omar  put  his  hand  in  the  dish  and  filled  it  witli  therid,'^ 
which  he  reached  toward  'Amr,  saying,  "Take  this."  So 
'Amr  sat  down  and  took  the  therid  in  his  left  hand,  eating 
it  with  his  right,  while  the  deputation  which  had  accom- 
panied him  from  Egypt  looked  on.  As  soon  as  they  had 
come  away,  the  members  of  the  deputation  said  to  'Amr, 
"What,  pray,  was  that  which  thou  didst?"  'Amr  replied: 
"  He  certainly  knew  well  enough  that  I,  coming  from  Egypt 
in  the  way  that  I  did,  could  have  done  without  the  therid 
Avhich  he  offered  me.  But  he  wished  to  try  me;  and  if  I  had 
not  accepted  it,  I  should  have  met  with  trouble  from  him." 

Another  incident  is  narrated  by  Abu  '1-Aswad,  Nadr  ibn 
'Abd  el-Jabbar,  on  the  authority  of  Ibn  Lahi'a,  on  that  of  Abu 
Qabil.  'Amr  had  dyed  his  hair  and  beard  black ;  so  when  he 
entered 'Omar's  presence,  the  latter  said,  "  Who  art  thou  ?  " 
"  I  am  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi. "  'Omar  replied :  "  The  'Amr  with 
whom  I  deal  is  an  old  man,  but  thou  art  a  youth  to-day! 
Now  I  am  determined  that  thou  shalt  wash  this  off  as  soon  as 
thou  goest  forth  from  my  presence." 

'Abd  Allah  ibn  Salih  narrates,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  from 
Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib:  On  one  of  the  occasions  when  'Ami 
came  from  Egypt  to  visit  the  caliph  'Omar,  he  found  him  in 
the  pulpit  on  a  Friday,  and  'Omar  said:  "Here  comes  'Amr 
ibn  el-'Asi,  a  man  who  does  not  wish  to  walk  the  earth  unless 
he  can  do  so  as  an  amir. "  ^  And  'Amr  said,  according  to  el- 
Laith:  "Nothing  else  has  been  so  truly  my  own  trade  as 
war." 

10.    The  Death  of  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi 

The  death  of  'Amr  (God's  mercy  upon  him)  took  place  in 
the  year  43  [663  a.d.].     It  was  in  that  same  year  ^  that  'Otba 

1  Crumbled  bread  soaked  in  gravy. 

2  Anotlier  tradition  is  given  here  in  support  of  this  saying  of  'Omar's,  namely 
that  of  Sa'id  ibn  'Ofair,  derived  from  Ibn  Lahi'a,  from  Mushrih  ibn  Ha'an  from 
Oqba  ibn  'Amir. 

*  This  from  YahyS,  ibn  Bukair,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd. 


298  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ibn  Abi  Sufyan  was  given  the  command  in  Egypt,  and  that 
Sharik  ibn  Sumai  made  his  ex^Dedition  against  Lebda  in  North 
Africa.^  When  the  time  of  'Ami's  death  was  at  hand,  his 
eyes  filled  with  tears.^  His  son,  'Abd  Allah,  said  to  him: 
"O  Abu  'Abd  Allah,  can  it  be  fear^  of  death  which  thus 
affects  thee  ?  "  "  Not  so, "  he  replied,  "  but  of  what  is  to  come 
after  death."  Then  'Abd  Allah  recalled  to  him  all  the  places 
where  he  had  been  in  the  company  of  the  Prophet,  and  the 
battles  which  he  had  helped  to  win  in  Syria.  When  he  had 
finished,  'Amr  said:  "I  have  passed  through  three  periods; 
and  if  I  had  died  during  either  of  the  first  two,  I  should  have 
known  what  men  would  say  of  me.  God  sent  Mohammed, 
and  I  was  of  all  men  the  most  bitterly  opposed  to  what  he 
brought,  and  wished  that  I  might  kill  him.  If  I  had  died  in 
those  days,  men  would  have  said,  '  'Amr  died  an  idolater,  an 
enemy  of  God  and  his  Prophet;  he  is  in  hell-fire.'  Then 
God  &Q\\i^  isldm  into  my  heart;  so  I  went  to  the  Prophet, 
and  he  stretched  out  his  hand  to  me  to  covenant  with  me ;  but 
I  drew  back  my  hand,  and  said :  '  I  will  covenant  with  thee 
on  condition  that  my  past  sins  be  forgiven  '  —  thinking  that 
in  islam  I  should  commit  no  more  sins.  But  the  Prophet 
said:  '  O  'Amr,  islam  cancels  whatever  sin  had  preceded  it, 
and  the  Jiijra  ^  cancels  those  which  were  committed  between  it 
and  the  receiving  of  islam.''  Now  if  I  had  died  during  this 
second  stage,  men  would  have  said :  '  'Amr  became  a  Muslim, 
and  waged  the  holy  war  in  company  with  the  Prophet;  we 
hope  that  God  has  a  rich  reward  in  store  for  him. '  But  then  I 
came  to  hold  military  commands,  and  there  were  severe  trials ; 
and  I  have  fears  for  this  last  period.     But  when  ye  carry  me 

1  See  below,  page  317. 

2  This  often  repeated  tradition  is  given  here  from  Asad  ibn  Mflsa  and  'Abd 
Allah  ibn  Salih,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  from  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib,  from  Ibn 
Shamasa. 

3  'Abd  Allah  did  not  use  the  word  Ichauf"  fear,"  to  be  sure,  but  out  of  delicacy 
of  feeling  chose  the  vrovA  jcza' ,  "apprehension,  uneasiness." 

<  The  verb  is  that  ordinarily  used  of  sliooting  an  arrow,  or  hurling  a  dart. 
6  The  final  renunciation,  with  the  Prophet,  of  the  old  ties  in  Mekka,  and  the 
removal  with  him  to  el-Medina. 


THE   MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  299 

forth,  make  haste  with  me ;  let  no  mddiha  ^  follow  me,  nor  any 
torch ;  but  gird  my  mantle  tightly  about  me,  for  I  am  yet  to 
see  strife ;  and  throw  the  soil  well  over  me,  for  my  right  hand 
is  not  better  entitled  to  it  than  my  left;  and  do  not  bring  into 
my  grave  any  piece  of  wood  or  brick. ^  Then  when  ye  have 
buried  me,  remain  by  me  for  as  long  a  time  as  it  would  take 
to  kill  a  camel  and  cut  it  up,  that  I  may  enjoy  your 
presence."  ^ 

'Amr  said  also :  "  Although  no  one  loved  the  Prophet  more 
than  I  did,  yet  I  did  not  often  give  myself  the  delight  of  his 
presence,*  nor  did  I  keep  going  to  him  with  my  wants,  until 
the  time  when  he  was  taken  up  to  God,  because  of  my  awe 
of  him." 

11.    'Amr^s  Last  Commands^ 

Asad  ibn  MusS  has  transmitted  the  following,  from  'Abd 
er-Rahman  ibn  Mohammed,  from  Mohammed  ibn  Talha,  from 
Isma'il :  When  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  was  nigh  to  death,  he  said, 
"  Call  'Abd  Allah, "  and  then  said  to  him :  "  My  son,  when  I 
am  dead,  wash  my  body  once,  putting  into  the  last  of  the 
water  which  ye  •  use  a  little  camphor.  Then  when  ye  have 
finished,  carry  me  forth  quickly ;  and  when  ye  have  laid  me 
in  my  grave,  throw  the  soil  well  over  me,  knowing  that  ye 
are  leaving  me  alone  and  in  fear.  O  God,  I  do  not  seek  to 
excuse  myself,  I  only  ask  for  forgiveness.  O  God,  thou  hast 
commanded  certain  things,  and  we  have  neglected  them ;  thou 
hast  forbidden  certain  things,  and  we  have  done  them.  I  have 
not  been  innocent  enough  to  be  justified,  nor  strong  enough 
to  conquer.  But  there  is  no  God  but  thou,  no  God  but 
thou !  "     This  he  said  three  times,  and  then  was  taken  away. 

1  A  professional  mourner,  a  woman,  whose  business  it  was  to  sing  the  praises 
of  the  departed. 

2  I.  e.,  he  was  to  have  no  coffin,  nor  walled  sepulchre. 

8  Our  author  then  adds  another  cliain  of  authorities  for  the  same  tradition,  viz. 
Asad  ibn  Musa,  Ibn  Lahi'a,  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib,  Suwaid  ibn  Qais,  Qais  ibn 
Sumai. 

*  Literally,  "  fill  my  eye  from  him." 

^  This  chapter  is  merely  a  continuation  —  and  to  a  considerable  extent,  also,  a 
verbal  repetition  —  of  the  traditions  contained  in  the  preceding  one. 


300  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  narrates,  from  Ya'qub  ibn  'Abd 
er-Rahman,  from  his  father:  When  'Amr  was  at  the  point  of 
death,  his  eyes  filled  with  tears  and  he  wept.  'Abd  Allah 
said  to  him,  "  Father,  I  had  never  been  wont  to  fear  lest  a 
command  of  God  should  come  upon  thee  which  thou  couldst 
not  bear."  But  he  replied:  "My  son,  there  have  come  upon 
thy  father  three  grievous  things :  first,  the  loss  of  his  com- 
mand; second,  the  fear  of  what  is  now  to  come;  and  third, 
the  separation  from  those  whom  he  loves ;  and  this  last  is  the 
easiest  to  bear  of  the  three.  O  God,  thou  hast  commanded, 
and  I  have  been  remiss;  thou  hast  forbidden,  and  I  have 
disobeyed.  But  to  thy  nature  belong  forgiveness  and 
forbearance."^ 

When  'Abd  Allah  ibn  'Amr  was  going  forth  to  conduct  the 
prayer  at  his  father's  funeral,  he  said:^  "I  would  not,  in- 
deed, that  any  man  of  all  the  Arabs  were  my  father  in  place 
of  this  one ;  but  I  should  not  wish  God  to  know  that  my  eyes 
shed  tears  of  apprehension  for  him,  even  though  all  the  red 
camels^  of  the  herd  were  to  be  mine."  Then  he  uttered  the 
tekhir. 

'Amr  was  buried  in  the  Moqattam,  on  the  "side  toward  the 
ravine.  That  was  the  way  which  travellers  to  the  Hijaz  took, 
in  those  days,  and  he  wished  that  those  who  passed  by  might 
say  a  prayer  for  him.  Hence  the  following  lines,  composed 
by  'Abd  Allah  ibn  ez-Zubair:  ^  — 

*'  Hast  thou  not  seen  how  changeful  time  has  wrought  its  ruin 
Upon  the  Sahmite,  'Amr,  to  whom  all  Egypt  payed  its  tribute? 
He  is  cast  forth,  unheeded,  on  the  desert  plain;  his  careful  plans 
Are  come  to  naught,  his  great  wealth  has  availed  him  not. 
His  troops  could  not  protect  him,  nor  his  native  cunning, 
Nor  all  his  planning,  when  the  fated  time  was  come." 

1  Here  follow  two  more  traditions,  substantially  identical  with  those  which 
have  already  been  given,  but  supported  by  different  chains  of  witnesses.  I  have 
omitted  them  in  the  translation. 

2  This  tradition  is  by'  Abd  el-Ghaffar  ibn  D&'M  and  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Salih,  from 
el-Laith  ibii  Sa'd,  from  Rabi'a  ibn  Loqait. 

8  I.  e.,  the  best  part. 

*  'Abd  Allah's  name  appears  often  in  the  traditions  relating  to  the  conquest  of 
North  Africa,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  301 


II 

THE  CAMPAIGNS  OF  'ABD  ALLAH  IBN  SA'D 

1.    The  Conquest  of" Africa' 

After  ^  'Othman  had  removed  'Arar  ibn  el-'Asi  from  the 
command,  and  appointed  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  ibn  Abi  Sarh 
in  his  place,  the  latter  continued  to  send  out  the  troops  of 
Muslim  horse  to  raid  the  borders  of  Africa  and  bring  in  booty, 
as  they  had  done  under  'Amr's  rule.  At  length  Abd  Allah 
wrote  to  'Othman,  telling  him  how  near  these  regions  were 
to  the  Muslim  domain,  and  asking  permission  to  undertake  a 
campaign  thither.  'Othman,  after  taking  counsel  in  the 
matter,  encouraged  his  people  in  the  undertaking,  and  when 
a  company  of  them  had  been  collected,  appointed  over  them 
el-Harith  ibn  el-Hakem,  with  orders  to  proceed  to  Egypt  and 
join  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd,  who  was  to  command  the  whole. 
So  'Abd  Allah  set  out  for  Africa. 

Now  the  seat  of  rule  in  Africa  at  that  time  was  a  city 
called  QartSjenna,^  where  was  reigning  a  king  whose  name 
was  Jurjir.^  He  had  originally  been  appointed  vice-gerent 
there  by  [the  Byzantine  emperor]  Heraclius,  but  had  revolted 
and  coined  dinars  in  his  own  name.*     His  domain  extended 

1  The  following  is  chiefly  from  'Othman  ibn  R&lih. 

2  The  Arabic  form  of  the  name  Carthage. 

3  The  prefect  Gregory,  who  had  undoubtedly  assumed  the  purple,  as  here  nar- 
rated, as  he  is  styled  Turannos  by  the  Byzantine  writers.  The  story  of  his 
daughter,  who  remained  at  his  side  to  aid  him  during  the  battle  with  the  Arabs, 
has  been  a  favorite  with  historians,  though  probably  without  foundation  in  fact. 
'Abd  Allah  is  said  to  have  ofifered  her  as  a  prize  to  that  man  of  his  army  who 
should  bring  him  Gregory's  head. 

*  Another  brief  tradition,  repeating  a  part  of  the  preceding,  here  follows  in 
the  original. 


302  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

from  Itr^bulus  to  Tanja.^  So  when  'Abd  Allah  approached, 
Jurjir  met  him,  and  a  battle  was  fought,  in  which  the 
latter  was  killed  and  his  army  put  to  flight.  It  is  often 
asserted  that  the  one  who  killed  Jurjir  was  'Abd  Allah  ibn 
ez-Zubair.  Then  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa  d  divided  his  "troops  into 
small  bands  and  sent  them  in  all  directions,  and  they  brought 
in  abundant  spoil.  When  the  chieftains  of  the  country  saw 
this,  they  began  to  treat  with  'Abd  Allah,  offering  to  give 
him  a  sum  of  money  if  he  would  go  forth  from  their  land. 
He  agreed,  and  took  the  money  and  returned  to  Egypt,  with- 
out appointing  any  Muslim  governor  over  them  or  establish- 
ing any  military  station  in  their  land. 

When  the  booty  taken  at  this  time  was  divided,^  the  share 
of  each  Muslim,  after  the  fifth  ^  had  been  deducted,  was  three 
thousand  dinars  for  a  horseman  and  one  thousand  for  a  foot- 
soldier.  [There  are  also  traditions  here  relating  to  a  certain 
foot-soldier  who  died  after  taking  part  in  this  expedition,  to 
whose  family  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dinars  was  then  paid, 
as  his  share.*]  The  number  of  'Abd  Allah's  army  was  twenty 
thousand,^  and  the  one  who  had  charge  of  the  division  of  the 
booty  was  Sharik  ibn  Sumai.  It  is  said  that  Sharik  sold  Ibn 
Zarara  of  el-Medtna  a  quantity  of  gold  ore,  receiving  in  return 
a  sum  which  proved  to  be  greater  than  its  value.  El-Miqdad 
ibn  el-Aswad,  meeting  them  and  hearing  of  this,  said,  "  This 
will  never  do."  Thereupon  Ibn  Zarara  said  [to  Sharik], 
"The  extra  amount  is  yours  as  a  gift."  But  Sharik  an- 
swered, "  I  do  not  wish  to  keep  what  is  yours,  and  I  return 
it." 


1  I.  e.  Tanijiers. 

2  A  number  of  separate  traditions  are  ^iven  here,  but  as  they  agree  as  to  the 
main  facts,  I  have  given  only  the  substance  of  them. 

'^  One-fifth  of  any  booty  of  war  was  the  property  of  the  Caliph.  According  to 
the  Koran  (Sura  8,  42),  a  part  of  this  fifth  was  to  be  devoted  to  charities. 

*  Certain  sheiklis  of  Egyi)t  are  here  quoted  as  saying  that  each  of  these  din&ra 
was  worth  a  dinar  and  a  quarter. 

5  A  tradition  of  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama,  derived  from  ibn  Lahi'a,  states 
that  Mahra  alone  had  600  men  in  the  army  ;  Ghanth  (belonging  to  Azd)  700  ;  and 
Maida'an  (also  of  Azd)  700. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  303 

In  the  division  of  the  booty,  ^  the  daughter  of  Jurjir  came 
into  the  possession  of  a  certain  man  of  the  Ansar.^  He  put 
her  on  a  camel  and  set  out  to  return  home,  and  as  he  did  so, 
he  recited  these  verses :  — 

"  O  daughter  of  Jurjir,  it  will  soon  be  thy  turn  to  walk  I 
Thou  shalt  find  in  the  Hijaz  a  mistress  over  thee  ; 
All  the  way  from  Qoba'  thou  shalt  carry  the  water-skin  !  " 

As  she  heard  him,  she  asked,  "  What  is  this  dog  saying  ?  " 
Some  one  told  her,  whereupon  she  threw  herself  down  from 
the  camel  upon  which  she  was  riding,  and  was  killed  by  the 
fall,  her  neck  being  broken. 

It  is  said 3  that  one  day  while  Abd  Allah  ibn  Sad  was  in 
Africa  there  was  placed  before  him  a  heap  of  coined  silver. 
He  said  to  the  natives  who  brought  it,  "  Where  did  you  get 
this  ? "  Thereupon  one  of  them  began  looking  about  as 
though  he  were  searching  for  something,  until  he  found  an 
olive,  which  he  brought  to  'Abd  Allah,  saying,  "  It  is  from 
this  that  we  get  the  silver. "  Being  asked,  "  How  so  ?  "  he 
answered :  "  The  Greeks  have  no  olives,  so  they  come  to  us 
and  buy  our  oil,  and  we  receive  in  return  for  it  this  silver 
money. "  ^ 

Another  tradition  ^  relating  to  this  campaign  is  that  on  one 
occasion,  when  'Abd  Allah  was  conducting  the  sunset  prayer, 
and  had  completed  two  rek'as,  a  confused  noise  was  heard  in 

^  The  following  tradition  our  author  cites  from  his  father,  and  from  Sa'id  ibn 
•Ofair. 

2  According  to  some  traditions,  this  man  was  'Abd  Allah  ibn  ez-Zubair.  Thus, 
for  example,  the  interesting  account  in  Ibn  Khaldun.  That  this  is  merely  a 
later  embellishment  of  the  story,  however,  similar  to  those  already  mentioned 
above,  is  sufficiently  proved  by  the  account  of  this  battle  given  (in  what  purport 
to  be  'Abd  Allah's  own  words)  in  the  Agltani,  vi.  58  f. 

^  Our  author  notes  here  that  some  authorities  (whom  he  names)  have  called 
"Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  the  conqueror  of  Africa;  but  adds  that  others,  improving 
this  by  a  pun  {i/tara'  for  iflatah)  have  called  him  the  deflowerer  of  Africa. 

*  Here  follows  a  brief  and  unimportant  tradition  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
name  "  Africa."     See  above,  page  28.5. 

s  From  the  author's  father,  from  Bekr  ibn  Mudar,  from  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib, 
from  Qais  ibn  Abi  Yezid,  from  el-Jellas  ibn  'Amir,  from  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Abi 
Babi'a. 


304  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

the  place  where  they  were  praying,  and  the  men  were  seized 
with  a  panic,  for  they  thought  that  the  enemy  were  upon 
them.  So  he  broke  off  the  service ;  but  when  he  saw  noth- 
ing, he  addressed  the  people,  and  then  said :  "  This  prayer  of 
ours  is  as  good  as  dead ;  "  then  he  commanded  the  muezzin 
to  proclaim  the  service  anew,  and  began  it  again. 

2.   How  the  Tidings  were  brought  to  3Iedina  ^ 

According  to  the  tradition  of  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama, 
derived  from  Ibn  Lahfa,  'Abd  Allah  sent  'Oqba  ibn  Nafi' 
[to  el-Medina]  with  the  tidings  of  the  victory  in  Africa ;  but 
other  authorities  say  rightly  that  it  was  'Abd  Allah  ibn  ez- 
Zubair  who  was  sent.  He  rode  from  Africa  to  el-Medina  in 
twenty  nights,  and  on  his  arrival, ^  entered  the  presence  of 
'Othm^n  and  began  narrating  how  they  had  met  the  enemy, 
and  what  things  had  happened  during  the  campaign.  The 
caliph  was  astonished,  and  said,  "  Canst  thou  tell  the  people 
these  same  things ? "  "Yes,"  he  replied.  So 'OthmSn  took 
him  by  the  hand  and  led  him  to  the  minbar,  saying,  "  Now 
narrate  to  them  what  thou  hast  narrated  to  me."  At  first 
'Abd  Allah  hesitated,  and  his  father,  ez-Zubair,  who  was 
present,  took  up  a  handful  of  gravel  and  was  on  the  point  of 
throwing  it  at  him,  when  he  began  speaking  in  words  which 
filled  them  all  with  astonishment  and  admiration.  So  from 
that  day  on,  ez-Zubair  was  wont  to  say :  "  When  one  of  you 
wishes  to  marry  a  woman,  let  him  look  to  her  father,  or  to 
her  brother,  for  he  will  be  sure  to  see  a  colt  from  her  tied  at 
his  door;  "3  saying  this  because  of  the  resemblance  which  he 
saw  between  'Abd  Allah  and  Abu  Bekr.* 

Another   tradition   narrates :  ^  When  'Abd    Allah   ibn  ez- 

1  This  superscription  is  lacking  in  the  original. 

2  The  tradition  is  from  Sa'id  ibn  'Ofair,  from  el-Mundhir  ibn  'Abd  Allah  el- 
Hizami,  from  Hisham  ibn  'Orwa. 

3  I.  e.,  he  will  see  something  to  show  liim  what  sort  of  children  may  be  ex- 
pected from  her.    The  metaphor  is  truly  Arabian. 

*  Ez-Zubair's  wife,  and  'Abd  Allah's  mother,  was  Asm!,  the  daughter  of  Abfl 
Bekr. 

6  This  is  from  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd. 


THE   MOHAMMEDAN   CONQUEST  305 

Zubair  was  sent  from  the  army  with  the  tidings  of  victory,  he 
waited  upon  'Othman  at  once,  before  seeing  his  father,  ez- 
Zubair.  So  'Othman  went  forth  to  the  mosque,  taking  'Abd 
Allah  with  him.  After  repeating  the  formulas  of  praise  to 
God,  he  mentioned  the  things  which  God  had  permitted  the 
Muslims  to  do  under  the  leadership  of  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd, 
and  then  said:  "Stand  forth,  'Abd  Allah,  son  of  ez-Zubair, 
and  tell  the  people  what  thou  hast  witnessed!  "  Ez-Zubair 
said  afterwards :  "  I  was  angry  with  'Othman  when  I  heard 
that,  and  said  to  myself.  He  is  making  a  mere  boy  stand 
forth,  who  will  not  be  able  to  speak  in  a  way  that  is  either 
equal  to  the  occasion  or  creditable  to  himself."  But  Abd 
Allah  stood  up  and  spoke  eloquently  and  suitably,  so  that 
before  he  had  finished  all  were  filled  with  wonder.  Then 
'Othman  came  doAvn  from  the  minhar^  and  'Abd  Allah  went 
to  his  father,  who  took  him  by  the  hand,  saying:  "When 
thou  wouldst  marry  a  woman,  look  first  to  her  father  and 
her  brother;  "  seeming  thus  to  compare  him  in  eloquence  with 
Abu  Bekr  es-Siddiq,  his  grandfather. 

Others  assert  (says  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem)  that  'Abd  Allah 
ibn  Sa'd  sent  Merwan  ibn  el-Hakem  i  to  'Othman  from  Africa ; 
whether  at  the  time  of  this  conquest,  or  after  it,  I  do  not 
know,  God  knows  best.  There  was  sent  with  him  ^  an  Arab, 
either  from  the  tribe  of  Lakhm  or  from  that  of  Judham ;  on 
this  point  Ibn  'Abd  el-Hakem  was  in  doubt.  [The  story  is 
then  told  in  Merwan's  own  words :]  While  we  were  journey- 
ing, one  day,  night  overtook  us  as  we  were  passing  over  a 
certain  road,  and  my  companion  said:  "Wilt  thou  that  we 
lodge  with  a  friend  of  mine  here?"  "As  thou  wilt,"  I  re- 
plied. So  he  led  me  aside  from  the  road  until  we  came  to  a 
monastery.  Now  my  companion  was  a  more  learned  man 
than  I.  A  chain  was  hanging  at  the  door;  he  took  hold  of 
this  and  shook  it,  whereupon  a  man  appeared  above  us,  who, 
when  he  saw  us,  opened  the  door  and  let  us  in.     Before  a 

1  Merwan  became  caliph  in  tlie  year  64  (683  a.  d.),  but  reigned  less  than  a 
year. 

2  The  following  is  given  on  the  authority  of  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Ma'shar,  of  Aila. 

20 


306  BIBLICAL   AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

word  had  been  spoken,  he  spread  a  bed  for  each  of  us ;  then 
he  approached  my  companion  and  began  speaking  to  him  in  a 
foreign  tongue,  and  continued  this  until  I  became  uneasy. 
Then  he  came  to  me,  and  said,  "  In  what  way  art  thou  related 
to  your  caliph?"  I  replied,  "lam  his  cousin."  "Is  there 
any  one  nearer  of  kin  to  him  than  thou?"  he  asked.  I  an- 
swered, "No,  unless  a  son  should  be  born  to  him."  Then  he 
asked,  "  Art  thou  the  governor  of  the  Holy  Land  ?  "  ^  "  Not 
so."  "Endeavor  to  be,  then,  if  thou  canst  accomplish  it." 
Then  he  said,  "  I  would  tell  thee  something,  but  I  fear  that 
thou  canst  not  bear  it."  I  answered,  "Dost  thou  say  this 
to  me,  knowing  who  I  am?"  But  he  returned  to  my  com- 
panion, and  again  talked  with  him  in  the  foreign  tongue. 
At  length  he  approached  me  once  more,  and  asked  of  me 
questions  like  the  former  ones,  while  I  returned  similar  an- 
swers. Then  he  said :  "  Thy  sovereign  is  soon  to  be  slain ; 
and  we  ^  find  [it  foretold]  that  the  governor  of  the  Holy  Land 
is  to  be  caliph  after  him;^  so  if  thou  canst  attain  to  that 
position,  do  so."  When  I  heard  these  words,  profound  emo- 
tion seized  me ;  whereupon  he  said,  "  I  told  thee  that  I  feared 
thou  couldst  not  bear  it."  But  I  replied:  "How  should  I 
not  be  overcome,  seeing  that  thou  hast  foretold  to  me  the 
death  of  the  chief  of  the  Muslims,  and  the  commander  of  the 
Faithful!  "  So  I  went  on  to  el-Medina,  and  remained  there 
for  a  month  without  saying  anything  to  'Othman  about  this 
matter.  Then  I  went  to  him,  and  found  him  in  his  house, 
reclining  on  a  couch  with  a  fan  in  his  hand.  I  told  him  the 
story,  and  when  I  came  to  the  prediction  of  the  assassination 
I  wept,  and  coukl  proceed  no  further.  But  'Othman  said, 
"Go  on;  thou  hast  not  finished  thy  narrative."  So  I  went 
on ;  and  he  l)egan  biting  the  edge  of  the  fan  (I  think  these 
were  the  words,  says  Ibn  'Abd  el-IIakem)  and  seizing  the  end 

1  I.  e.,  Palestine. 

2  I.  e.,  the  monks  of  the  monastery,  with  their  access  to  hidden  sources  of 
knowledge. 

8  The  "  governor  of  the  Holy  Land  "  who  was  .soon  to  succeed  to  the  caliphate 
was  Mo'awiya,  who  gained  control  over  all  Syria  and  Palestine  before  the  death 
of  'Othman. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  307 

of  his  heel  and  rubbing  it,  as  he  lay  on  his  back,  until  I 
repented  of  having  told  him  the  story.  Then  he  said :  "  He 
told  the  truth,  and  I  will  tell  thee  how  I  know  it.  When 
the  Prophet  made  his  expedition  to  Tebuk,  he  gave  to  each  of 
his  companions  his  portion  of  the  booty,  but  to  me  he  gave 
two  portions.  I  supposed  that  this  was  because  of  what  I 
had  expended  on  the  expedition,  and  going  to  the  Prophet,  I 
said:  '  Thou  hast  given  me  two  portions,  but  to  each  of  my 
companions  a  single  portion;  and  I  suppose  that  this  is  be- 
cause of  the  expense  I  have  incurred.'  But  he  answered: 
*  No,  but  I  wished  the  people  to  see  the  esteem  in  which  I  hold 
thee. '  So  I  turned  away,  and  just  then  'Abd  er-Rahman  ibn 
'Auf  met  me,  and  said :  '  What  hast  thou  been  saying  to  the 
Prophet?  His  glance  ceases  not  to  follow  thee.'  Then  I 
thought  that  I  must  have  said  something  displeasing  to  the 
Prophet;  so  I  waited  until  he  came  out  for  prayers,  and  then 
going  to  him  I  said:  '  O  Prophet,  'Abd  er-Rahman  ibn  'Auf 
has  told  me  thus  and  thus,  and  I  repent  before  God  '  (or 
words  to  that  effect).  But  he  answered :  '  Not  so ;  but  thou 
art  to  be  either  slain  or  a  slayer;  be  then  the  slain! '  "  God 
knows  best  how  much  of  this  story  is  true.  The  date  of 
the  conquest  of  Africa^  was  the  year  27  [648  a.d.];  and  in 
that  same  year  Hafsa,  the  wife  of  the  Prophet,  died.^ 


3.    The  Conquest  of  Nubia 

'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  next  undertook  an  expedition  against 
the  Blacks,  that  is,  against  Nubia.  This  took  place  in  the 
year  31. ^  The  Nubians  gave  him  a  fierce  battle,  in  which 
Mo'awiya  ibn  Hodaij,  Abu  Shamir  ibn  Abraha,  and  Hayuwil 
ibn  Nashira  each  lost  an  eye.  It  was  on  this  occasion  that 
the  Nubians  were  given  the  name  JRumM  el-Hadaq.^     'Abd 

1  This  is  from  Yahya  ibn  Bukair,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd. 

2  This  latter  statement  is  from  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama,  from  Malik  ibn 
Anas. 

8  Two  separate  traditions  in  support  of  this  statement  are  given  here. 
*  I.  e.,  the  archers  who  hit  the  pupils  of  the  eyes. 


308  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Allah  finally  made  a  treaty  of  peace  with  them,  not  being  able 
to  subdue  them.  It  was  in  regard  to  this  battle  that  the 
poet  said : 

"  My  eyes  ne'er  saw  another  fight  like  Damqula,^ 
With  rushing  horses  loaded  down  with  coats  of  mail." 

According  to  Ibn  Abi  Habib,  the  terms  which  'Abd  Allah 
made  with  them  were  these:  The  Muslims  were  not  to  attack 
them,  nor  they  the  Muslims;  Nubia  was  to  pay  to  the  Mus- 
lims so  and  so  many  slaves  every  year,  and  the  Muslims  were 
to  pay  the  Nubians  yearly  so  and  so  much  wheat  and  lentils. 
Ibn  Abi  Habib  says,  moreover,  that  they  [the  Nubians]  had 
no  compact  of  any  kind  with  the  Egyptians ;  but  simply  this 
agreement,  for  mutual  protection,  with  the  Muslims.  Ibn 
Lahi'a  adds,  that  their  captive  slaves  might  be  purchased  from 
them,  as  from  others.  Abu  Habib  (whose  proper  name  was 
Suwaid),  the  father  of  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib,^  was  himself 
one  of  these  slaves.  Ibn  Lahi'a  says:  I  heard  Yezid  ibn  Abi 
Habib  saying :  "  My  father  was  one  of  the  captive  slaves  of 
Damqula,  and  became  the  freedman  of  a  man  of  the  Bani 
'Amir,  of  the  people  of  el-Medina,  whose  name  was  Sherik 
ibn  Tofail."  The  number  of  slaves  which  the  Nubians  were 
obliged  to  pay  is  given  by  some  of  the  sheikhs  of  Eygpt  as 
three  hundred  and  sixty  yearly;  others  say  four  hundred, 
three  hundred  and  sixty  being  for  the  Muslim  booty  and  forty 
for  the  governor  of  the  province.  Some  assert,  moreover, 
that  seventeen  of  them  were  women  with  children  at  the 
breast.  After  concluding  this  compact  with  the  Nubians, 
'Abd  Allah  retired  from  their  land. 

One  of  the  most  prominent  of  the  sheikhs  of  ^gypt  nar- 
rates that  he  once  looked  into  one  of  the  army  registers  in 
Fustat,  and  read  it  before  it  was  torn  up,  and  that  the  follow- 
ing words  from  it  remained  in  his  memory:  "We  hereby 
make  a  covenant  and  a  compact  with  you,  on  condition  that 
ye  pay  us  yearly  three  hundred  and  sixty  head,  and  that  ye 
enter  our  territory  only  to  pass  through,  not  to  remain ;  we 

1  I.  e.,  Dongola. 

2  The  transmitter  of  many  of  the  traditions  iu  this  history. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  309 

promising  the  same  with  regard  to  your  territory,  with  the 
understanding  that  if  ye  kill  any  Muslim,  or  harbor  any  of  our 
runaway  slaves,  the  compact  is  broken ;  and  it  shall  be  incum- 
bent on  you  to  return  the  fugitive  slaves  of  the  Muslims,  as 
well  as  any  belonging  to  the  peoples  under  our  protection  who 
may  take  refuge  with  you."  Others  of  the  sheikhs  assert  that 
there  was  no  formal  obligation  resting  upon  the  Muslims  and 
in  favor  of  the  Nubians,  but  say  that  in  the  first  year  of  their 
sending  what  they  had  agreed  to  send,  they  brought  to  'Amr 
ibn  el-'Asi  a  gift  of  forty  slaves ;  but  that  he,  being  unwilling 
to  receive  it  from  them,  returned  it  to  one  of  the  chief  men 
of  the  Copts,  named  Nestaqus,  who  was  the  officer  in  charge 
of  their  affairs.  The  latter  then  sold  the  slaves,  and  bought 
for  his  people  such  things  as  they  needed.  They  [the 
sheikhs  above  mentioned]  allege  in  regard  to  this  that  'Amr 
sent  to  them  wheat  and  horses,  the  reason  for  his  doing  so 
being  that  they  had  been  ill  supplied  with  these  things,  and 
having  made  known  this  lack  at  the  beginning,  they  were 
furnished  with  them.     This  is  what  they  relate. 

As  'Abd  Allah  was  returning,  there  were  assembled  before 
him  on  the  bank  of  the  Nile  the  people  of  el-Bujja.  He 
inquired  about  them,  and  was  told  what  they  were,  but 
thinking  them  too  insignificant  to  be  negotiated  with,  he 
passed  on  and  left  them.  So  they  had  at  that  time  no  com- 
pact or  treaty  with  the  Muslims.  The  first  to  treat  with 
them  was  'Obaid  Allah  ibn  el-Habhab.^  One  of  the  sheikhs 
asserts  that  he  once  read  the  written  statement  made  by  Ibn 
el-HabMb,  and  that  it  contained  these  words:  "  [They  shall 
furnish]  three  hundred  young  slaves  every  year,  delivering 
them  in  er-Rif  ;2  passing  through  the  land  as  traders,  but  not 
remaining.  If  they  kill  any  Muslim  or  protege  of  the  Mus- 
lims, the  compact  is  annulled.  They  may  harbor  no  slave  of 
the  Muslims,  but  must  return  such  fugitives  as  come  to  them. 
I  also  made  with  them  at  that  time  the  following  compact, 
to  which  they  agreed:  Any  man  of  el-Bujja   who   steals  a 

1  He  was  governor  of  the  province  Africa  from  116  to  123  a.  H. 

2  I.  e.,  in  Lower  Egypt. 


310  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

sheep  shall  be  required  to  pay  for  it  four  dinars ;  if  he  steals 
a  cow,  he  shall  pay  ten  dinars.  Their  representative  re- 
mained in  er-Rif,  as  a  pledge  of  good  faith  in  the  hands 
of  the  Muslims." 

4.    Tlie  Victory  of  DM  '  s-SawSiri'^ 

The  next  expedition  undertaken  by  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd  was 
that  of  Dhu  's-Sawari,  in  the  year  34.2  Qjjg  Qf  ^j-^g  traditions 
relating  to  this  campaign  is  the  following :  When  'Abd  Allah 
halted  at  Dhu  's-Sawari,  he  sent  away  half  his  men,  under 
tlie  command  of  Busr  ibn  Abi  Artah,  on  a  land  expedition  by 
night.  After  they  were  gone,  a  messenger  came  to  'Abd 
Allah,  saying :  "  Whatever  thou  hast  planned  to  do,  should 
Heraclius  come  upon  thee  suddenly  with  a  thousand  boats, 
that  do  immediately ! "  (The  other  authorities,  says  our 
author,  contradict  el-Laith  here,  saying  that  it  was  not 
Heraclius,  but  his  son,^  the  former  having  died  in  the  year  19, 
when  the  Muslims  were  besieging  Alexandria.)  Now  the 
Muslim  boats  numbered  at  that  time  only  a  little  more  than 
two  hundred.  So  'Abd  Allah  went  and  stood  among  his  men, 
and  said :  "  I  have  been  told  that  Heraclius  is  approaching 
with  a  thousand  boats;  now  give  me  counsel!  "  As  no  one 
replied,  he  seated  himself  for  a  moment,  waiting  for  them  to 
collect  themselves ;  then  he  arose  again  and  addressed  them, 
but  again  no  one  answered  him.  So  he  seated  himself,  and 
then  after  a  moment  stood  up  for  the  third  time,  saying: 
"We  are  at  the  last  extremity;  give  me  counsel!"  Then 
there  arose  a  man  of  el-Medina,  a  volunteer  in  'Abd  Allah's 

1  Dh(i  (or  Dh&t)  es-Sawari  "  The  Place  of  the  Masts,"  is  said  by  the  Arab 
writers  to  have  been  so  named  because  of  the  great  number  of  vessels  which  took 
part  in  this  battle. 

2  This  is  from  Yahya  il)n  Bukair,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd  ;  the  following  narra- 
tive is  from  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Salih,  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  from  Yezid  ibn  Abi 
Habib.     According  to  other  authorities,  the  date  of  this  event  was  the  year  31. 

*  This  was  Constans  II,  who  reigned  from  642  to  068  A.  n.  (21-48  a.h.)- 
His  name  is  written  Qostantin  by  the  Arab  historians.  It  is  true  that  he  made 
this  expedition  in  person,  and  was  defeated  by  the  Arabs. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  311 

army,  and  said :  "  O  Commander !  God  Almighty  says :  '  How- 
many  a  little  band  has  conquered  a  multitude,  with  God's 
help!  God  is  with  those  who  stand  fast. '  "  ^  "  Embark,  then, 
in  the  name  of  God!  "  said  'Abd  Allah.  So  they  embarked; 
but  each  boat  had  only  half  its  crew,  the  others  having  gone 
with  Busr  on  his  land  expedition.  They  soon  met  the  enemy, 
and  the  fight  was  begun  with  darts  and  arrows.  The  Emperor 
Heraclius  ^  remained  in  the  rear,  to  be  safe  in  case  of  defeat, 
and  a  succession  of  small  boats  brought  him  news  of  the 
battle.  At  first,  when  he  asked,  "What  tidings?"  the 
reply  was,  "  They  are  fighting  with  darts  and  arrows. "  "  The 
Greeks  are  conquering !  "  he  cried.  Again,  as  they  returned, 
he  asked,  "  What  tidings  ?  "  "  The  darts  and  arrows  are  ex- 
hausted," was  the  answer,  "and  they  are  hurling  stones." 
"The  Greeks  are  conquering,"  he  said  again.  Then  they 
came  once  more,  and  said,  in  reply  to  his  question,  "The 
stones  are  all  gone,  and  now  they  have  lashed  the  boats 
together,  two  by  two,  and  are  fighting  hand  to  hand  with 
their  swords. "  At  this  he  cried,  "  The  Greeks  are  conquered !  " 
The  tradition  ^  has  it  that  the  boats  were  lashed  together 
with  chains,  as  was  then  usual,  and  that  the  hostile  boat  which 
was  fastened  to  the  one  containing  the  Muslim  commander, 
'Abd  Allah,  began  to  tow  it  over  among  the  enemy,  and  would 
have  succeeded  had  not  'Alqama  ibn  Yezid  el-Ghotaifi,  who 
was  fighting  at  the  side  of  'Abd  Allah,  struck  the  chain  such 
a  blow  with  his  sword  that  he  cut  it  through.  Now  'Abd 
Allah's  wife,  Busaisa,  the  daughter  of  Hamza  ibn  Lisharh, 
was  with  him  in  the  boat ;  for  the  Muslims  often  carried  their 
wives  with  them  at  such  times.  So  after  the  battle  'Abd 
Allah  asked  her,  "  Whom  didst  thou  think  most  valiant  in 
the  fight?  "  *  " 'Alqama  of  the  chain !  "  was  her  answer.  Now 
it  had  happened  that  at  the  time  when  'Abd  Allah  was  wooing 

1  Koran,  Sura  2,  250. 
^  See  the  note  above. 

3  This  tradition  comes  from  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama,  on  the  authority  of 
Ibn  Lahi'a,  who  had  it  from  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib. 
^  Expecting,  no  doubt,  to  hear  his  own  valor  praised. 


312  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

Busaisa,  and  went  to  ask  her  in  marriage  from  her  father, 
the  latter  said:  "'Alqama  has  already  asked  for  her  hand, 
and  I  have  given  him  my  promise,  but  if  he  is  willing  to 
release  her,  I  will  agree."  So  Abd  Allah  made  request  of 
'Alqama,  and  the  latter  acquiesced.  But  after  the  death  of 
'Abd  Allah,!  Alqama  married  Busaisa.  Then  when  he  in 
turn  died,  she  was  married  to  Karib  ibn  Abraha,  and  died  as 
his  wife  in  the  year  in  which  [the  caliph]  Merwan  killed  el- 
Akdar  ibn  Homam.^  This  is  from  Ibn  Lahi'a;  the  other 
authorities  narrate  that  -el-Akdar  was  killed  on  the  very  day 
of  Busaisa's  death,  and  that  when  the  tidings  of  the  matter 
came  to  Karib,  he  said,  "  Wait  until  I  am  through  with  this 
burial,"  and  did  not  turn  aside  until  after  el-Akdar  had  been 
killed;  and  that  the  people  blamed  Karib  for  this.  As  for 
el-Akdar  and  his  death,  there  is  a  longer  tradition  than  this 
one  regarding  it. 

The  following,  also,  is  wanting  in  Ibn  Lahi'a.  In  the 
year  35  [655  a.d.]  the  Greeks  came  to  Constantine,^  the  son 
of  Heraclius,  and  said :  "  Wilt  thou  leave  Alexandria  in  the 
hands  of  the  Arabs,  when  it  is  our  greatest  city  ?  "  He  re- 
plied :  "  What  can  I  do  with  you  ?  Can  ye  stand  your  ground 
for  a  moment,  when  ye  meet  the  Arabs  ?  "  But  they  cried : 
"  Go  forth  with  us,  upon  our  oath  that  we  will  do  or  die !  " 
So  they  took  this  oath,  and  he  set  out  for  Alexandria  with  a 
thousand  boats.  They  sailed  at  a  time  when  tempests  are 
frequent,  and  God  sent  a  storm  upon  them  and  they  were 
drowned.  Constantino  and  his  boat  escaped  shipwreck,  but 
the  storm  drove  him  to  the  island  of  Sicily.  When  he  told 
the  people  there  his  story,  they  said:  "The  Christian  power 
has  been  tried  and  found  wanting;  its  men  are  all  gone. 
If  the  Arabs   should   descend  upon  us  now,  we  could  find 

^  The  year  of  his  death  was  36,  five  years  (according  to  Ihn  'Abd  el-Hakem, 
two  years)  after  this  battle. 

2  This  was  in  the  year  64,  the  year  in  which  Merwfin  invaded  Egypt  in  his 
contest  with  the  adlierents  of  'Abd  Allah  il)n  ez-Zubair.  El-Akdar  was  one  of 
the  noted  warriors  of  Egypt,  and  the  news  of  his  death  by  the  treacherous  act  of 
Merwiln  created  no  little  excitement  in  the  army. 

8  See  the  note  above. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN   CONQUEST  313 

none  to  help  us  keep  them  back."  He  answered:  "We  went 
forth  with  all  promise  of  victory,  but  this  disaster  overtook 
us."  Then  they  prepared  a  bath  for  him,  and  fell  upon  him 
when  he  had  entered  it.^  "Woe  to  you!"  he  cried;  "your 
men  are  gone,  as  ye  say,  and  now  ye  will  slay  your  emperor!  " 
"Yes,"  they  answered,  "it  will  be  as  though  he  had  been 
drowned  with  the  rest."  So  they  slew  him,  but  spared  those 
who  had  been  in  the  boat  with  him. 

5.    The  Garrison  of  Alexandria 

After  God  had  conquered  Alexandria  for  the  Muslims,  ^ 
and  the  land  was  in  quiet,  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  set  apart  one- 
quarter  of  his  troops  to  garrison  the  city,  provision  being 
made  that  they  should  remain  there  for  six  months,  at  the 
end  of  which  time  they  should  be  relieved  by  another  divi- 
sion of  equal  size,  which  should  remain  for  the  same  length 
of  time.  It  was  further  provided  that  one-quarter  of  the 
troops  should  guard  the  coast,  while  the  rest,  one-half  of  the 
whole,  remained  with  'Amr  himself. 

According  to  a  tradition  from  another  source :  The  caliph 
'Omar  ibn  el-Khattab  used  to  send  every  year  a  force  re- 
cruited in  el-Medina  for  the  garrisoning  of  Alexandria,  for 
the  governors  [of  Egypt]  were  always  anxious  about  the  city, 
and  kept  strengthening  the  garrison,  not  trusting  the  Greeks. 
Moreover,  'Othman  wrote  as  follows  to  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd : 
"  Thou  knowest  how  the  Commander  of  the  Faithful  is  anx- 
ious for  Alexandria,  and  how  the  Greeks  have  twice  revolted. 
Now,  therefore,  keep  a  garrison  constantly  in  the  city,  and 
see  that  they  are  fully  provided  for;  see,  too,  that  a  new 
force  replaces  the  old  every  six  months." 

Talq  ibn  es-Samh  narrates,  from  DammSm  ibn  Isma'il  el- 
Moghafiri,  from  Abu  Qabil,  that  'Otba  ibn  Abi  Sufyan  gave 

1  In  this  part  of  the  story,  dealing  with  the  murder  of  the  emperor  in  Sicily, 
and  the  manner  of  it,  our  Arab  narrator  has  found  his  way  to  actual  facts. 

2  The  tradition,  received  through  'Othman  ibn  Salih  and  Ibn  Lahi'a,  is  from 
Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib  and  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Hubaira,  whose  accounts  supplement 
each  other. 


314  BIBLICAL   AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

to  'Alqama  ibn  Yezid  the  command  over  the  Muslim  force  in 
Alexandria,  sending  with  him  twelve  thousand  men.  Then, 
when  'Otba  left  'Alqama  and  his  men  in  the  lurch,  the  latter 
wrote  to  Mo'awiya  making  complaint,  and  received  the  fol- 
lowing reply :  "  I  hereby  send  you,  by  way  of  reinforcement, 
ten  thousand  Syrians  and  five  thousand  of  the  men  of  el- 
Medma."  Thus  the  total  number  of  the  Muslim  garrison  in 
the  city  reached  twenty-seven  thousand. 

'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  narrates,  on  the  authority  of 
Ibn  Lahfa:  When  'Alqama  ibn  Yezid  was  in  command  of 
Alexandria,  with  twelve  thousand  men,  he  wrote  to  Mo'a- 
wiya: "Thou  hast  put  me  in  charge  of  this  city,  but  the 
force  with  me  numbers  only  twelve  thousand;  each  man  is 
almost  out  of  sight  of  his  nearest  comrade,  the  number  is  so 
small."  Mo'awiya  replied :  " I  hereby  send  thee  as  reinforce- 
ment 'Abd  Allah  ibn  Mutf  with  four  thousand  men  from  el- 
Medma ;  and  I  have  ordered  Mo'izz  ibn  Yezid  es-Sulami  to 
be  in  readiness  at  er-Ramla  with  four  thousand  men  holding 
the  bridles  of  their  horses,  so  that  whenever  they  hear  from 
thee  that  there  is  danger,  they  may  come  to  aid  thee." 

According  to  Ibn  Lahi'a's  tradition,  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  used 
to  say :  "  The  task  of  managing  all  Egypt  is  equal  to  holding 
the  caliphate." 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  315 


III 

SUBSEQUENT  COMMANDERS  AND  EXPEDITIONS  IN 
NORTH   AFRICA  1 

1.     Modwiya  ibn  Hodaij"^ 

The  next  to  undertake  an  expedition  into  North  Africa, 
after  'Abd  Allah  ibn  Sa'd,  was  Mo'awiya  ibn  Hodaij,  of  the 
tribe  Tajib,  in  the  year  34.  Among  those  with  him  in  his 
army,  that  year,  was  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Merwan.^  He 
(Mo'awiya)  captured  numerous  strongholds,  and  took  great 
booty;  he  also  established  a  military  station  at  el-Qarn,* 
which  he  continued  to  occupy  until  his  return  to  Egypt. 
There  were  with  him  in  this  expedition  a  number  of  the 
Muhajirun  and  Ansar. 

Suleiman  ibn  Yassar  narrates :  ^  We  made  an  expedition 
into  North  Africa  under  the  command  of  Mo'awiya  ibn 
Hodaij,  and  there  were  with  us  many  of  the  Muhajirun  and 
the  Ansar.  Mo'awiya  gave  us  as  our  portion  of  the  booty 
one  half,  after  deducting  the  fifth,^  and  I  saw  no  one  make 
objection  to  this  excepting  Jabala  ibn  'Amr,  one  of  the 
Ansar. 

Yiisuf  ibn  'Adi  also  reports "'  Khalid  ibn  Abi  'Imran  as  say- 

1  This  superscription  is  found  only  in  the  London  manuscript.  Here  begins 
(in  all  the  MSS.)  the  fifth  main  division  of  the  history. 

2  This  chapter-heading,  and  those  which  follow,  are  not  in  the  original. 

3  Caliph,  from  65  to  86  a.h.  (684-705  a.  d.). 

*  The  name  of  a  mountain.     See  below. 

5  This  tradition  comes  from  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  and  'Abd  Allah 
ibn  el-Mubarak  (through  Yusuf  ibn  'Adi),  both  having  received  it  from  Ibn 
Lahi'a,  from  Bukair  ibn  'Abd  Allah,  from  Suleiman  himself. 

*  See  the  note  above,  p.  302. 

'  From  Ibn  el-Mubarak,  from  Ibn  Lahi'a. 


316  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

ing:  I  asked  Suleiman  ibn  Yassar  about  the  booty  taken  dur- 
ing these  expeditions,  and  he  said:  "I  knew  of  no  other 
commander  making  such  a  division  as  did  JNIo'avviya  ibn 
Hodaij,  who  gave  us  in  Africa  the  half,  after  deducting  the 
fifth.  We  had  with  us  many  of  the  companions  of  the 
Prophet,  men  of  the  Muhajirun;  and  Jabala  ibn  'Amr,  one 
of  the  AnsSr,  refused  to  receive  any  of  it." 

Mo'awiya  ^  proceeded  first  to  Qonia,  a  place  [now]  belong- 
ing to  the  city  Qairawan,  and  thence  went  on  to  a  mountain 
called  el-Qarn,  near  which  he  made  his  camp.  Then  he  sent 
'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Merwan,  with  a  thousand  men,  to  a  city 
named  Jalula.  After  besieging  it  for  several  days  without 
success,  he  set  out  to  return,  but  had  proceeded  only  a  short 
distance  when  he  saw  a  great  cloud  of  dust  in  the  rear  of  the 
army.  Supposing  that  it  was  the  enemy  in  pursuit,  he  sent 
back  part  of  his  force  to  reconnoitre,  while  the  rest  remained 
standing  in  battle  order.  Those  despatched  for  the  purpose 
marched  back  rapidly,  and  found  that  the  walls  of  Jalula 
had  fallen;  so  the  Muslims  entered  the  city  and  plundered 
it.     Then  'Abd  el-Melik  returned  to  Mo'awiya. 

There  was  some  strife  over  the  booty  taken  at  this  time,^ 
so  the  commander  Mo'awiya  ibn  Hodaij  wrote  to  the  caliph 
Mo'awiya  regarding  it.  The  latter  replied,  "  The  main  army 
is  the  support  of  the  raiding  band,"  and  divided  the  spoil 
accordingly.  Each  man  received  two  hundred  dinars,  and 
each  horseman  received  four  hundred  for  his  horse  in  addi- 
tion to  his  own  portion.  Thus  'Abd  el-Melik  [ibn  Merwan] 
is  reported  to  have  said:  "I  received,  for  myself  and  my 
horse,  six  hundred  dinars,  and  used  the  money  to  buy  myself 
a  slave  girl." 

According  to  another  tradition,  ^Mo'Rwiya  himself  led  the 
raid  on  Jalula.  After  besieging  it  without  success,  he  aban- 
doned all  hope  of  getting  possession  of  it,  and  started  to 

1  The  narrative  now  returns  to  the  main  tradition,  derived  chiefly  from 
'Othm&n  ibn  Sal  ill 

2  Evidently  the  dispute  was  over  tlip  question  whether  the  troops  which  re- 
mained in  camp  with  Mo'awiya  should  have  a  share  of  the  spoil.  Cf.  1  Sam.  30  • 
22-24. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  317 

return;  moreover,  some  of  his  men  had  been  killed  and  a 
large  number  wounded.  But  God  conquered  the  city  for 
him,  after  he  had  left  it,  without  the  aid  of  horsemen  or 
foot-soldiers.  So  he  returned  v/ith  his  men  to  the  city,  and 
took  it,  with  all  its  inhabitants,  no  one  opposing  him.  Then, 
after  taking  the  spoil,  he  returned  to  Egypt. 

'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  reports  the  tradition  of  Ibn 
Lahi'a,  derived  from  Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib,  that  Mo'awiya 
ibn  Hodaij  made  three  expeditions  into  North  Africa:  the 
first  in  the  year  34,  before  the  death  of  'Othman  (it  was  at 
this  time  that  'Othman  gave  Merwan  the  fifth  part),^  an 
expedition  which  seems  to  be  unknown  to  most  writers ;  the 
second  in  the  year  40 ;  and  the  third  in  the  year  50. 

2.    ' Oqha  ih7i  Nafi 

The  next  to  make  an  excursion  into  North  Africa,  after 
Mo'awiya,  was  'Oqba  ibn  Nafi',  the  Fihrite,  who  set  out  in 
the  year  46,  taking  with  him  Busr  ibn  Abi  Artah  and  Sharik 
ibn  Sumai  of  the  tribe  Murad.  He  proceeded  as  far  as 
Maghdas,2  a  town  belonging  to  Surt,  where  he  encamped. 
(Busr  had  once  before  directed  his  march  toward  this  place, 
in  the  year  26,  starting  out  from  Surt.)^  Here  the  winter 
rains  overtook  him  (he  himself  was  physically  weak),  and 
word  was  brought  to  him  that  the  people  of  Wedd§,n  had 
revolted  and  renounced  the  conditions  which  Busr  ibn  Abi 
Artah  had  imposed  upon  them ;  for  'Amr  ibn  el-'Asi  had  sent 
Busr  against  Weddan  some  years  before,  at  the  time  when 
he  himself  was  besieging  Tarabulus,*  and  Busr  had  taken  the 
city.  So  'Oqba  left  there  the  main  body  of  his  army,  in 
charge  of  'Omar  ibn  'Ali  of  the  tribe  Qoraish,  and  Zuhair 
ibn  Qais  of  the  tribe  Bali,  while  he  himself  went  on  with  the 
most  mobile  of  his  troops,  four  hundred  horsemen  and  four 

^  The  part  of  the  booty  which  was  always  at  the  disposal  of  the  caliph.  See 
p.  302,  note. 

2  This  is  the  reading  of  the  best  MSS. ;  tlie  others  have  Maghmad^s. 
8  This  from  Yahya  ibn  Bukair,  on  the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd. 
*  This,  according  to  our  historian,  was  the  year  22  or  23  (see  p.  285,  above). 


318  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

hundred  mounted  on  camels,  with  eight  hundred  water-skins. 
Arriving  at  Weddan,  he  captured  the  city,  and  taking  their 
king,  cut  off  his  ears.  "Why  hast  thou  done  this  to  me," 
demanded  the  king,  " seeing  that  I  am  thine  ally  ?  "  "I  did 
it  to  teach  thee  a  lesson,"  'Oqba  replied.  "Whenever  thou 
shalt  touch  thine  ears,  thou  wilt  remember  not  to  fio-ht 
against  the  Arabs."  He  also  compelled  the  people  of  the 
city  to  pay  what  Busr  had  formerly  required  of  them, 
namely,  three  hundred  and  sixty  slaves. 

Then  'Oqba  asked  them  whether  there  were  any  other 
cities  beyond,  and  was  told  of  Jarraa,  the  principal  city  of 
Fezzan.  So  he  proceeded  thither,  eight  days'  journey  from 
Weddan,  and  when  he  drew  near  to  the  place  he  sent  a  mes- 
senger with  a  summons  to  Islam,  which  the  people  obeyed. 
He  halted  at  the  distance  of  six  miles  from  the  city,  and  as 
their  king  came  out  to  meet  him,  'Oqba  sent  horsemen  who 
separated  him  from  his  retinue  and  compelled  him  to  proceed 
on  foot.  By  the  time  he  reached  the  Muslim  camp,  he  was 
quite  exhausted  —  for  he  was  one  accustomed  to  luxury  — 
and  began  spitting  blood.  "Why,"  he  demanded,  "hast 
thou  treated  me  thus,  although  I  came  to  thee  in  submis- 
sion ?  "  "  It  was  done  in  order  to  teach  thee  a  lesson, "  'Oqba 
replied.  "  Whenever  thou  shalt  think  upon  it,  it  will  remind 
thee  not  to  contend  with  the  Arabs." 

Then,  after  imposing  the  tribute,  three  hundred  and  sixty 
slaves,  upon  them,  and  sending  the  men  back  eastward,  he 
proceeded  straight  on  at  once  against  the  fortresses  of  Fez- 
zan, which  he  took,  one  by  one,  until  he  had  gained  posses- 
sion of  the  last  one.  Here  he  asked  the  people  of  the  place, 
"Is  there  any  fortress  beyond  your  district?"  "Yes,"  was 
the  answer;  "there  is  Khawar,  a  great  stronghold  on  the 
edge  of  the  desert,  in  a  rugged  country,  on  the  top  of  a 
mountain;  it  is  the  chief  city  of  KuwwSr."  So  he  jour- 
neyed on  for  fifteen  days  until  he  reached  the  place,  and  as 
its  inhabitants  fortified  themselves  against  him,  he  besieged 
them  for  a  month,  but  without  success.  So  he  went  on  still 
further,  against  the  remaining  castles  of  KuwwSr,  and  cap- 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  319 

tured  them  all.  In  the  last  one  was  found  the  king  of  the 
region,  and  'Oqba,  taking  him,  cut  off  his  fingers.  "Why 
hast  thou  done  this  to  me?"  he  asked.  "For  a  lesson  to 
thee,"  was  the  answer.  "As  often  as  thou  beholdest  thy 
fingers,  thou  wilt  be  reminded  not  to  fight  against  the  Arabs." 
Then,  after  requiring  of  them  the  tribute,  three  hundred  and 
sixty  slaves,  he  asked,  "  Are  there  any  cities  beyond  you  ? " 
"I  have  no  knowledge  of  any,"  the  guide  answered. 

So  'Oqba  returned,  and  when  he  came  to  the  fortress 
Khawar  he  passed  by  it  without  attacking  it  or  even  mak- 
ing any  halt,  but  journeyed  on  for  three  days,  so  that  the 
people  of  the  city  felt  themselves  safe,  and  opened  their 
gates.  'Oqba  halted  in  a  place  which  is  now  called  Ma' 
Faras,  where  there  was  no  water,  and  he  and  his  men  suf- 
fered terribly  from  thirst,  until  they  were  nearly  at  the  point 
of  death.  But  at  last,  just  after  he  had  bowed  himself  twice 
in  prayer  and  called  upon  God  for  help,  his  horse  began 
pawing  the  ground  with  its  hoofs,  and  soon  uncovered  a 
rock  from  under  which  oozed  water,  which  it  began  to  suck 
up  eagerly.  'Oqba,  seeing  this,  shouted  to  his  men,  "  Dig 
here !  "  So  they  dug  seventy  small  water  holes  in  the  sand, 
and  drank  until  they  were  satisfied.  Hence  the  place  re- 
ceived the  name  Ma'  Faras. ^  Then  'Oqba  returned  to  Kha- 
war by  another  road,  and  the  people  there  knew  nothing  of 
his  approach  until  he  came  upon  them  by  night,  finding  them 
at  rest  in  their  homes,  in  fancied  security.  So  he  and  his 
army  took  possession  of  all  that  was  in  their  city,  their  goods 
and  their  women  and  children,  and  put  their  fighting  men  to 
the  sword. 

Then  he  turned  back  again,  and  after  making  a  short  stay 
in  the  place  where  Zawila  now  stands,  he  at  length  reached 
the  main  body  of  his  army,  after  an  absence  of  five  months, 
and  found  that  none  were  missing,  either  of  the  men  or  of 
the  horses.  Thence  he  proceeded  westward,  avoiding  the 
main  road,  and  came  to  the  district  Mazata,  all  of  whose 

1  I.  e.,  the  horse's  watering-place. 


320  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

fortresses  he  took;  after  this  he  went  on  to  Suff,^  and  took 
its  castles  and  strongholds;  then  he  sent  a  force  of  cavalry 
against  Ghadamis  and  captured  it.  When  his  horsemen 
returned  to  him,  he  proceeded  against  Qafsa,  and  then 
against  Qastiliya,  in  both  cases  with  success. 

Then  he  returned  to  el-QairawSu ;  but  he  was  not  satisfied 
with  the  military  station  which  Mo'awiya  ibn  Hodaij  had 
established,  so  he  rode  on  with  his  men  until  he  came  to  the 
place  where  el-Qairawan  now  stands.  It  was  then  a  wady 
full  of  trees  and  thistles,  the  resort  of  wild  beasts,  lions,  and 
venomous  serpents.  Here  he  cried  at  the  top  of  his  voice : 
"  O  ye  inhabitants  of  the  wady !  Depart  (God  have  mercy 
on  you),  for  we  are  going  to  settle  here !  "  This  he  repeated 
during  three  days,  and  at  the  end  of  that  time  all  the  lions 
and  other  wild  beasts  and  the  noxious  reptiles  had  gone ;  not 
one  remained.  Then  he  ordered  his  men  to  clear  the  ground 
and  occupy  it,  and  those  who  had  been  settled  in  the  other 
place  by  Mo'awiya  ibn  Hodaij  were  transferred  to  this  new 
place.  Here  he  also  planted  his  spear  in  the  ground,  saying, 
" This  is  your  qairawmi.''^ ^ 

El-Laith  [ibn  Sa'd]  says:  I  have  been  told  by  Ziyad  ibn 
el-'Ajlan  that  this  part  of  Africa  was  free  from  venomous 
reptiles  for  forty  years  afterward.  If  any  one  had  offered  a 
thousand  dinSrs  for  a  serpent  or  a  scorpion,  it  could  not  have 
been  found. 

3.   Ah'd  n-MuMjir 

After  this,  'Oqba  was  deprived  of  his  command,  in  the 
year  61,  by  Maslama  ibn  Mokhallad  of  the  Ansar,  who  had 
been  appointed  governor  of  the  country  by  the  caliph  Mo'awiya. 
Maslama  was  the  first  governor  of  both  Egypt  and  North 
Africa,  having  been  appointed  in  the  year  47.^     He  gave  the 

1  This  name  is  found  in  the  manuscripts  of  Leyden  and  Paris  (No.  2).  The 
old  Paris  codex  and  that  of  Loudon  both  leave  a  blank  space  here. 

*  I.  e.,  military  station.  Another  version  of  the  story,  differing  very  slightly 
from  the  above,  here  follows  in  the  original. 

2  This  date  is  given  by  Yaliya  ibn  Bukair,  on  the  autliority  of  el-Laith  ibn 
Sa'd. 


THE   MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  321 

command  of  the  army  to  Abu'l-Muhajir,  Dinar, ^  a  freedman  of 
the  Ansar,  and  instructed  him  to  depose  'Oqba  in  the  mildest 
manner  possible.  But  Abu'l-Muhajir  disobeyed  the  order, 
and  dealt  most  harshly  with  him,  throwing  him  into  prison 
and  keeping  him  there,  loaded  with  chains,  until  a  letter 
came  from  the  caliph  setting  him  free,  and  appointing  an 
interview  with  him.  When  'Oqba  came  forth  from  the 
prison,  he  went  as  far  as  Qasr  el-Ma',  and  there  prayed  and 
called  upon  God,  saying,  "  O  God,  let  me  not  die  until  after 
thou  hast  given  Abu'l-Muhajir,  DinSr  the  son  of  Unim 
Dinar,2  into  ray  power!  "  This  prayer  was  reported  to  Abu'l- 
Muhajir,  and  from  that  time  on  he  never  ceased  to  fear  for 
his  life.  When  'Oqba  reached  Egypt,  Maslama  came  riding 
out  to  meet  him,  and  swore  a  solemn  oath  that  what  Abu'l- 
Muhajir  had  done  was  contrary  to  his  express  orders. 
Maslama  had  already  been  blamed  for  what  he  had  done: 
"Thou  shouldest  have  retained  'Oqba  in  his  place,"  it  was 
said,  "  for  he  is  a  man  of  sound  judgment  and  superior  abil- 
ity." To  this  Maslama  could  only  answer:  "Abu'l-Muhajir 
kept  importuning  us,  having  no  command  or  other  consider- 
able emolument,  and  we  wished  to  satisfy  him." 

As  for  Abu'l-Muhajir,  when  he  reached  North  Africa  he 
was  unwilling  to  stay  in  the  place  where  'Oqba  had  settled, 
so  he  went  on  two  miles  farther,  and  there  built,  and  took  up 
his  abode.  It  had  been  the  custom  ^  of  those  who  made  expe- 
ditions into  Africa  to  return  to  el-Fustat,  and  Abu'l-Muhajir 
was  the  first  to  remain  in  the  country  and  make  it  his  per- 
manent abode,  winter  and  summer.  Maslama  had  put  him 
in  command  of  the  army  which  went  out  with  him,  and  they 
remained  there  until  the  death  of  Ibn  ez-Zubair,  when  they 
withdrew. 

When  'Oqba  presented  himself  before  the  caliph  Mo'S- 

1  Dinar  was  his  true  name,  of  course,  and  Abu  '1-Muhajir  the  kunya. 

2  I.  e.,  he  was  a  nobody;  no  one  knew  who  his  father  was.  {Umm  Dinar 
means  "  the  mother  of  Dinar.") 

3  This  statement  is  given  as  from  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama,  from  Ibn 
Lahi'a  (also  from  Ahmed  ibn  'Amr,  from  Ibn  Wahb,  from  Ibn  Lahi'a),  from 
Yezid  ibn  Abi  Habib. 

21 


322  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

wiya,^  he  said:  "It  was  I  who  conquered  the  lands,  and 
planted  the  settlements,  and  built  the  mosque  for  the  people, 
and  the  whole  region  was  subject  to  me;  and  yet  thou  hast 
sent  out  this  slave  of  the  Ansar,  who  removed  me,  and 
treated  me  so  shamefully !  "  Then  Mo'awiya  asked  his  for- 
giveness, and  said:  "Thou  knowest  how  highly  our  mur- 
dered chiefs  esteemed  Maslama,  and  how  he  gave  him  the 
preferment;  and  how  that  Maslama,  for  his  part,  sought  to 
avenge  his  death  and  offered  his  own  heart's  blood  for  him. 
And  now  I  restore  thee  to  thy  command." 

According  to  another  tradition,  it  was  not  Mo'awiya  who 
thus  restored  'Oqba  to  his  command  in  Africa,  but  Yezid  ibn 
Mo'awiya,  who  was  reigning  as  his  father's  successor  at  the 
time  when  'Oqba  arrived.  This  is  the  correct  tradition,  for 
Mo'awiya  died  in  the  year  60.^ 


4.   '  Oqba'B  last  Campaign 

Then  'Oqba  set  out  at  once  for  Africa,  making  all  speed 
because  of  his  rage  at  Abii'l-Muhajir,  and  on  his  arrival  he 
treated  him  as  he  himself  had  been  treated,  and  loaded  him 
with  chains.  Then  he  took  him,  still  in  chains,  on  an  expe- 
dition into  es-Sus  (the  people  of  es-Sus  are  a  branch  of  the 
Berbers,  called  Antaua).  After  making  a  circuit  through  the 
land  without  meeting  any  opposition  or  fighting  any  battle, 
he  turned  back  towards  Africa.  As  he  neared  its  border, 
he  gave  the  order  for  his  army  to  sej)arate,  and  permitted 
himself  to  be  left  with  only  a  small  number.  But  as  he 
approached  a  place  called  Tahuda,  he  was  met  by  a  large 
force  of  Greeks  and  Berbers  under  Kesil  *  ibn  Lemzem,  who 
had  heard  that  he  was  now  separated  from  the  greater  part 
of  his  army.     A  fierce   battle  was  fought,  in  which  'Oqba 

1  In  Damascus,  wliich  Mo'awiya  had  made  the  seat  of  the  caliphate. 

2  I.  6.,  the  caliph  'Othman. 

8  Other  authorities  for  this  date  are  here  given  in  the  original. 
*  Thus  written  in  all  the  manuscripts  of  the  Futuh  Misr.    The  correct  form 
of  the  name  is  Kesila.     He  was  the  head  of  the  tribe  Berauia. 


THE   MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  323 

was  killed  and  all  the  men  with  him  were  cut  down.  Abu'l- 
Muhajir,  still  in  his  chains,  was  killed  also.  Then  Kesil  and 
his  army  went  and  established  themselves  in  the  place  where 
'Oqba  had  made  his  settlement,  and  there  they  remained,  and 
conquered  those  who  were  near  them,  Bab  Qabis  and  the 
adjoining  country.  Kesil  also  sent  forth  his  men  in  every 
direction. 

Another  tradition  tells  the  story  differently,  as  follows: 
When  'Oqba  set  out  for  es-Sus,  he  left  Qairawan  in  charge 
of  'Omar  ibn  'Ali,  of  Qoreish,  and  Zuhair  ibn  Qais,  of  Bali. 
In  those  days,  Africa  was  called  Muzaq.  As  'Oqba  was  on 
his  way,  one  of  the  enemy's  leaders,  with  thirty  thousand 
men,  took  advantage  of  his  absence  to  attack  'Omar  and 
Zuhair,  who  had  only  six  thousand  men ;  but  God  gave  the 
Muslims  the  victory.  While  'Oqba  was  journeying,  the 
Berber  chieftain  Ibn  el-Kahina  was  following  close  behind 
him;  as  often  as  'Oqba  left  a  water-hole  where  he  had  halted, 
Ibn  el-Kahina  came  and  filled  it  up.  This  continued  until 
'Oqba  reached  es-Sus,  not  knowing  what  the  Berber  had  been 
doing.  When  'Oqba  came  to  the  sea,  he  drove  his  horse  into 
it  until  the  water  reached  its  neck,  and  then  cried :  "  O  God, 
I  call  thee  to  witness  that  there  is  no  bridge.  Had  I  found 
a  bridge,  I  would  have  passed  over. "  Then  he  turned  back 
by  the  way  he  had  come,  but  found  that  the  watering  places 
were  filled  up.  Then  the  Berbers  with  all  their  forces  fell 
upon  him,  but  he  fought  to  the  end.  Now  Abu'l-Muhajir 
was  with  him,  in  chains,  and  when  the  fight  became  desper- 
ate, 'Oqba  gave  orders  to  free  him  from  his  fetters;  but  he 
refused  to  be  freed,  saying,  "I  will  meet  God  in  my  chains." 
So  both  'Oqba  and  Abu'l-Muhajir  and  all  those  who  were 
with  them  were  killed. 

'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  narrates  as  follows,  from  el- 
Laith  ibn  Sad:  When  'Oqba  ibn  Nafi',  returning  from  his 
interview  with  the  caliph  Yezid  ibn  Mo'awiya,  arrived  in 
Eygpt  with  his  army,  on  his  way  to  North  Africa,  he  met 
'Abd  Allah  ibn  'Amr,  who  said  to  him:  "  O  'Oqba,  perchance 
thou  art  one  of   that  company  who  are  to  enter  paradise 


324  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

with  their  saddle-bags."  Then  he  and  his  army  passed  on, 
and  were  all  slain  in  battle  with  the  Berbers,  who  were 
unbelievers. 

A  similar  tradition  is  given  by  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama, 
from  Ibn  Lahi'a,  from  Bujair  ibn  Dhakhir,  of  the  tribe 
Moghafir,  who  said :  I  was  with  'Abd  Allah  ibn  'Amr  when 
'Oqba  arrived,  and  'Abd  Allah  said :  "  What  has  brought 
thee  here,  'Oqba?  For  I  know  that  thou  art  eager  for  mili- 
tary command."  'Oqba  replied:  "The  Commander  of  the 
Faithful,  Yezid,  has  given  me  charge  of  an  expedition  into 
Africa. "  Then  'Abd  Allah  said :  "  Beware  lest  thou  become 
the  curse  of  the  widows  of  Egypt;  for  I  have  long  heard  that 
a  man  of  Qoreish  would  go  forth  on  such  an  expedition,  and 
would  perish  in  it."  So  'Oqba  went  on  into  Africa,  and  first 
searched  out  Abii'l-Muhajir  and  put  him  in  irons;  then  he 
marched  on,  taking  Abu'l-Muhajir  with  him,  to  the  battle 
with  the  Berbers,  whose  army  numbered  five  thousand  men 
of  Egypt.  In  the  battle  he  and  all  his  men  and  Abu'l- 
Muhajir  were  killed.  The  date  of  this  event,  according  to 
Yahya  ibn  Bukair,  who  had  it  from  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  was 
the  year  63. 

Then  ^  Ibn  el-Kahina  marched  to  QairawSn  to  attack 
'Omar  ibn  'Ali  and  Zuhair  ibn  Qais.  They  fought  a  fierce 
battle  with  him,  in  which  he  was  put  to  flight  and  many  of 
his  companions  were  slain ;  then  'Amr  and  Zuhair  proceeded 
toward  Egypt  with  their  army,  to  meet  the  Berber  chieftains, 
leaving  in  Tarabulus  the  disabled  of  their  companions  and 
those  of  the  people  of  Africa  who  had  joined  them. 

According  to  one  tradition,  when  'Abd  el-' Aziz  became 
governor  of  Egypt  he  wrote  to  Zuhair,  who  was  then  in 
Barca,  directing  him  to  make  an  incursion  into  Africa;  and  he 
accordingly  went  out  with  a  large  army.  As  he  drew  near 
to  Qonia,  where  the  army  of  Kesil  ibn  Lemzem  was,  he  set 
his  troops  in  order ;  and  when  the  enemy  came  out,  a  battle 
was  fought  in  which  Kesil  was  killed  and  his  army  routed. 
Then  Zuhair  withdrew  to  Barca. 

1  The  main  line  of  the  narrative,  derived  chiefly  from  'Othmfin  ibn  Salih,  is 
resumed  here. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  325 

According  to  another  tradition,  it  was  Hassan  ibn  en- 
No'man  who  sent  Zuhair  on  this  expedition;  God  knows 
best  which  is  right. 

The  death  of  Kesil,  according  to  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  quoted 
by  Yahya  ibn  Bukair,  took  place  in  the  year  64. 


5.    Hassan  ibn  en-Ndmdn 

Then  Hassan  ibn  en-No'man  became  governor  of  North 
Africa,  having  been  appointed  by  'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Merwan 
in  the  year  73.  He  proceeded  with  a  large  army  to  TarS- 
bulus,  where  he  was  joined  by  all  those  who  had  gone  out 
from  Africa  and  Tarabulus;  and  putting  Mohammed  ibn 
Abi  Bukair,  Hilal  ibn  Tharwan,  of  the  tribe  Luwata,  and 
Zuhair  ibn  Qais  in  charge  of  the  van  of  his  army,  he  con- 
quered the  adjoining  districts  and  took  abundant  booty.  He 
also  advanced  upon  the  city  Qartajenna,  in  which  the  Greek 
troops  were  quartered,  but  was  able  to  reach  only  a  few  of 
the  weakest  of  them.  Then  he  returned  and  attacked  el- 
Kahina,^  who  was  at  that  time  the  queen  of  the  Berbers  and 
had  conquered  the  greater  part  of  Africa.  They  joined  battle 
at  a  river  which  is  now  called  Nahr  el-Bala,  and  after  a  fierce 
engagement  she  put  his  army  to  flight,  killing  many  of  them 
and  taking  eighty  prisoners.  Hassan  himself  escaped,  and 
made  his  way  to  Antabulus,  where  he  took  up  his  abode  in 
certain  castles  belonging  to  the  territory  of  Barca,  which 
were  afterwards  called  the  Castles  of  Hassan,  He  gave  the 
command  of  the  province  Africa  to  Abu  Salih,  while  the  ter- 
ritory under  his  own  control  included  Antabulus,  Liibiya,  and 
Muraqiya  as  far  as  Ajdabiya. 

As  for  el-Kahina,  she  treated  her  prisoners  kindly,  and  set 
them  all  free  except  one,  a  man  of  'Abs  named  KhSlid  ibn 
Yezid,  whom  she  kept  by  her,  treating  him  as  one  of  her 
sons.  At  length  Hassan  sent  a  man  to  Khalid  with  this 
message:   "Hassan  says,   What  hinders  thee  from  sending 

^  The  word  Icdhina  means  "  priestess." 


326  BIBLICAL  AND  SEMITIC  STUDIES 

US  a  letter  with  information  concerning  el-Kahina  and  her 
army  ?  "  So  Khalicl  wrote  a  letter  to  Hassan,  and  put  it  in 
a  cake  of  bread  baked  in  ashes,  and  then  gave  it  to  the  mes- 
senger, thinking  that  it  would  thus  be  effectually  concealed, 
since  those  who  saw  the  bread  would  suppose  that  it  was 
the  man's  provision  for  his  journey.  But  el-Kahina  came 
out,  and  said,  "  O  my  children,  I  see  that  your  death  is  in 
that  which  men  eat."  These  words  she  repeated.  Then  the 
messenger  went  away  and  brought  to  Hassan  the  letter  con- 
taining the  information  he  wished.  After  this,  Khalid  wrote 
another  letter  and  concealed  it  in  the  messenger's  saddle- 
bow, making  a  cavity  for  it,  and  then  covering  over  and 
smoothing  the  place  so  as  to  hide  it  completely.  But  this 
time  also  el-Kahina  came  out,  saying,  "  O  my  children,  your 
death  is  in  something  which  was  once  a  living  plant  in  the 
ground ;  "  and  again  she  repeated  her  words.  The  mes- 
senger departed  and  came  to  Hassan,  who  called  his  men 
together  and  prepared  to  make  the  attack.  As  they  drew 
near,  el-Kahina  came  forth  with  her  loosened  hair  streaming, 
and  cried,  "Look,  my  children!  What  do  ye  see  yonder 
above  the  horizon?"  "We  see,"  they  said,  "something  like 
a  reddish  cloud."  "Not  so,  by  my  God!"  she  answered; 
"  It  is  the  dust  of  the  Arab  horsemen !  "  Then  she  said  to 
Khalid :  "  It  was  in  preparation  for  such  a  day  as  this  that  I 
made  thee  my  son.  My  death  is  now  at  hand,  and  I  charge 
thee  to  take  good  care  of  these  two  brothers  of  thine." 
Khalid  said :  "  I  fear,  if  what  thou  sayest  is  true,  that  they 
will  not  be  left  alive."  "They  will  survive,"  she  answered, 
"and  one  of  them  will  stand  in  a  higher  place  among  the 
Arabs  than  he  occupies  now.  Go,  therefore,  and  obtain 
protection  for  them  both."  So  Khalid  went  forth  to  meet 
Hassan,  and  told  him  of  the  two  sons  of  el-Kahina  and  ob- 
tained protection  for  them.  Now  Hassan  had  in  his  army  a 
company  of  Berbers  of  the  tribe  Butr,  and  he  appointed  the 
elder  of  the  two  sons  to  be  their  commander,  and  showed 
him  favor.  Then  he  himself  and  his  men  went  on  and  met 
el-Kahina  at  the  foot  of  a  mountain,  and  there  she  was  slain, 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN   CONQUEST  827 

with  the  most  of  those  who  were  about  her.  Hence  the 
place  was  afterwards  called  Bir  el-Kahina.^ 

Then  Hassan  returned,  and  settled  in  the  place  where 
Qairawan  of  Africa  now  stands.  He  built  there  the  public 
mosque,  and  prepared  the  official  registers,  and  imposed  the 
land-tax  upon  the  natives  of  the  country,  as  well  as  upon 
those  of  the  Berbers  who  continued  with  them  as  adherents 
of  the  Christian  faith.  Nearly  all  of  these  were  from  the 
tribe  Beranis,  but  there  were  a  few  from  Butr.  Hassan 
remained  there  until  all  the  country  was  submissive  and  in 
order,  then  he  repaired  to  'Abd  el-Melik  ^  with  his  booty,  in 
the  second  Jumada  of  the  year  76.^  As  he  passed  by  Barca, 
he  appointed  Ibrahim  ibn  en-Nasr§,ni  over  its  tribute;  then 
he  came  to  Egypt,  where  'Abd  el-' Aziz  ibn  Merwan  was 
governor;  then  he  went  on  to  present  himself  to  the  caliph 
*Abd  el-Melik,  who  was  delighted  with  his  report  of  con- 
quests made  and  spoil  taken. 

Others  assert  that  when  he  arrived  in  Egypt,  'Abd  el-' Aziz 
took  from  him  all  the  captives  who  were  with  him,  for  he 
brought  such  beautiful  Berber  slave  girls  as  had  never  been 
seen  before.  The  poet  Nusaib*  used  to  say:  "I  myself  saw 
the  captives  which  'Abd  el-' Aziz  took  from  Hassan,  and 
there  were  among  them  two  hundred  girls  worth  a  thousand 
dinars  each." 

6,    The  Death  of  Zuhair  ibn  Qais 

After  the  departure  of  Hassan,  the  Greeks  attacked  AntS- 
bulus,  and  Ibrahim  ibn  en-Nasrani  fled,  leaving  the  people  of 
Antabulus  and  their  allies  in  the  hands  of  the  Greeks,  who 
held  possession  for  forty  days  and  did  great  mischief  in  the 
land.  When  tidings  of  this  reached  'Abd  el-'Aziz  ibn  Mer- 
wtn,  he  sent  to  Zuhair  ibn  Qais  (who  had  gone  out  formerly 

1  I.  e.,  the  well  of  el-Kahina. 

2  That  is,  to  Damascus. 

3  Another  tradition,  that  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  reported  by  Ibn  Bukair,  is  noted 
here,  according  to  which  the  date  was  the  year  78. 

*  Nusaib  ibn  Rebbah,  a  freedman  of  'Abd  el-'Aziz  ibn  MerwS,n,  well  known 
among  the. early  Arab  poets  of  Egypt. 


328  BIBLICAL  AND   SEMITIC  STUDIES 

with  Hassan,  and  then  remained  in  Egypt  after  their  return), 
ordering  him  to  march  at  once  against  the  Greeks.  Zuhair 
obeyed,  but  only  seventy  of  his  men  were  ah-eady  with  him 
at  that  time.  Now  there  was  a  certain  recruiting  officer  of 
the  tribe  of  Sadif,  named  Jandal  ibn  Sakhr,  who  was  a 
coarse,  churlish  fellow;  so  Zuhair  said  to  'Abd  el-' Aziz: 
"Now  that  thou  hast  given  me  the  order  to  set  out,  pray 
do  not  send  Jandal  with  me  as  my  recruiting  officer,  for  he 
would  be  sure  to  keep  back  the  men  from  joining  me  by 
his  violence  and  churlishness."  Now  'Abd  el-' Aziz  bore  a 
grudge  against  Zuhair,  because  he  had  opposed  him  when 
his  father,  Merwan  ibn  el-Hakem,  had  sent  him  by  way  of 
Aila  before  he  [Merwan]  himself  entered  Egypt ;  ^  so  he 
answered:  "I  have  never  known  thee,  thyself,  to  be  other 
than  a  boor  and  a  rude  fellow."  Then  said  Zuhair:  "I  have 
not  been  wont  to  think,  O  thou  son  of  Laila,  that  one  who 
collected  what  God  revealed  to  Mohammed  before  thy  parents 
came  together  is  a  boor  and  a  rude  fellow ;  nor  is  he !  Now 
I  am  going,  and  may  God  never  bring  me  back  to  thee !  " 
So  he  marched  forth  with  his  seventy  men  until  he  came  to 
Darna,  a  place  belonging  to  Tauqa  in  the  district  of  Anta- 
bulus,  where  he  came  upon  the  Greek  army.  As  he  paused 
to  let  his  men  close  up,  a  certain  young  man  who  was  with 
him  said,  "Art  thou  faint-hearted,  Zuhair?"  "Not  I,  O 
son  of  my  brother!"  he  answered,  "we  have  both  of  us 
courted  this  fate."  Then  he  closed  with  the  enemy,  and 
he  and  all  his  men  died  the  martyr's  death.  Their  graves 
are  pointed  out  there  to  this  day.  The  time  when  this  took 
place,  according  to  el-Laith,  quoted  by  YahyS  ibn  Bukair, 
was  the  year  76. 

Now  there  was  at  Amlas,  in  the  desert  of  Antftbulus, 
a  man  of  the  tribe  Madhhaj  whose  name  was  'Atiya  ibn 
Yarbu,  who  had  fled  with  his  son  from  the  pestilence. 
There  were  many  other  INIuslims  in  that  region,  and  these 
he  aroused  to  help  him  in  his  attempt,  riding  forth  with  all 

1  At  the  time  referred  to  above,  id  connection  with  the  story  of  el-Akdar, 
page  312. 


THE  MOHAMMEDAN  CONQUEST  329 

who  would  follow.  Some  seven  hundred  men  having  joined 
him,  he  advanced  with  them  against  the  Greeks,  whom  he 
defeated,  seizing  their  boats  and  putting  the  remnant  of  their 
army  to  flight.  When  'Abd  el-' Aziz  ibn  Merwan  heard  of 
this,  he  sent  a  young  slave  of  his  named  Telid  to  take  charge 
of  the  district,  and  there  came  with  him  a  number  of  the 
prominent  men  of  Egypt.  ^  The  people  were  dissatisfied  with 
the  preferment  of  Telid,  because  he  was  a  slave;  so  when 
'Abd  el-' Aziz  heard  of  this,  he  sent  a  message  to  him  setting 
him  free,  and  he  remained  in  Antabulus. 

7.    Musa  ibn  Nosair 

[Not  long  after  this]  Hassan  ibn  en-No'man  came  back 
from  his  visit  to  the  caliph  'Abd  el-Melik,  on  his  way  to 
North  Africa.  Arriving  in  Eygpt,  he  went  to  'Abd  el- 
'Aziz  and  said,  "  Write  to  that  slave  of  thine  to  remove  from 
Antabulus."  "Not  I!"  was  the  answer,  "seeing  that  thou 
didst  lose  it  and  abandon  it  to  the  Greeks."  "Then,"  said 
Hassan,  "I  will  return  at  once  to  the  Commander  of  the 
Faithful."  "  Return,  by  all  means!"  the  other  replied.  So 
Hassan  returned  to  'Abd  el-Melik,  leaving  behind  in  Egypt 
his  baggage  and  all  the  cumbersome  part  of  his  train.  Now 
'Abd  el-' Aziz  had  sent  out  Musa  ibn  Nosair  to  North  Africa, 
and  when  the  caliph  heard  this  from  Hassan  (who  had  been 
taken  ill  before  his  arrival),  he  bowed  himself  to  the  ground, 
crying  out:  "Praise  to  God,  who  has  given  me  my  oppor- 
tunity with  Musa !  "  for  he  was  his  bitter  enemy.  (Musa 
had  been  'Abd  el-Melik's  governor  over  el-'Iraq  together 
with  Bishr  ibn  Merwan,  and  when  the  caliph  quarrelled 
with  him  and  wished  to  have  him  put  to  death,  'Abd  el-' Aziz 
had  ransomed  him  for  a  sum  of  money,  having  a  high  opin- 
ion of  his  intelligence  and  good  judgment ;  and  he  had  been 
with  him  in  Egypt.)     But  very  soon  after  this  Hassan  died; 

1  There  is  noted  here  also  the  tradition  of  Yahya  ibn  Bukair,  from  el-Laith 
ibn  Sa'd,  that  the  one  who  was  appointed  amir  of  Antabulus  upon  the  death  of 
Zuhair  was  Tariq. 


330  BIBLICAL   AND   SEMITIC.  STUDIES 

SO  Musa  ibn  Nosair  was  allowed  to  remain  in  North  Africa, 
where  he  had  arrived  in  the  year  78.^ 

Musa  removed  Abu  Salih,^  and  himself  conducted  a  suc- 
cessful campaign  through  the  greater  part  of  North  Africa, 
following  one  victory  with  another  in  close  succession.  He 
made  report  of  his  progress  to  'Abd  el-'Aziz,  and  sent  him 
some  of  the  booty.  This  'Abd  el-'Aziz  sent  on  to  'Abd  el- 
Melik,  and  it  had  the  effect  of  quieting  considerably  the 
caliph's  anger  against  Musa. 

'Abd  el-Melik  ibn  Maslama  narrates,  on  the  authority  of  el- 
Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  that  when  Musfl  undertook  this  campaign  into 
North  Africa,  he  intrusted  one  division  of  the  army  to  his  son 
Merw§,n,  who  took  a  hundred  thousand  captives;  and  that 
he  sent  out  another  division  in  charge  of  his  nephew,  who 
also  took  a  hundred  thousand.  (El-Lai th  ibn  Sa'd,  being 
asked  of  what  race  these  captives  were,  replied  that  they 
were  Berbers.)  When  Musa  sent  in  his  report  of  these 
things,  some  of  the  people  said :  "  This  son  of  Nosair  is  cer- 
tainly crazy ;  whence  could  he  get  twenty  thousand  captives 
to  send  to  the  caliph  with  the  fifth  of  the  spoil  ?  "  When 
Musa  heard  of  this,  he  said,  "  Let  them  send  out  some  one 
else  who  can  take  twenty  thousand  for  them." 

Soon  after  this,  Abd  el-Melik  ibn  MerwRn  died ;  his  death 
occurring,  according  to  the  tradition  of  Yahya  ibn  Bi;kair  on 
the  authority  of  el-Laith  ibn  Sa'd,  on  Thursday,  the  four- 
teenth of  Shawwal,  in  the  year  86.  His  son  el-Welid  suc- 
ceeded to  the  caliphate ;  and  after  his  accession  the  conquests 
of  Musa  in  North  Africa  continued  to  follow  one  another,  so 
that  el-WelTd  held  him  in  high  esteem  and  regarded  him  with 
increasing  admiration. 

1  According  to  another  tradition  cited  here,  that  of  Yahya  ibn  Bukair  from 
el-Laith  il)n  Sa'd,  the  date  was  tlie  year  79. 

2  Whom  Hassan  had  left  in  charge  of  Africa,  as  narrated  above. 


\ 


Princeton  Theological  Seminanr  Libraries 


1    1012  01234  6955 


